Skip to main content

Full text of "The Agenda - The Homosexual Plan to Change America"

See other formats

"This powerful and hard-hitting booh lays bare the 
reality and risks of the homosexual agenda. ’ 



Truthful answers you need to know... 

• Is homosexuality genetic or is it a choice? 

• What impact will this agenda have on our schools, 
colleges, and workplaces? 

• How can we protect and educate our children? 

• What does God really say about homosexuality? 


Founder and Chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition 




A Strang Company 

Most Strang Communications/Charisma House/Siloam/ 
FrontLine products are available at special quantity discounts 
for bulk purchase for sales promotions, premiums, fund-raising, 
and educational needs. For details, write Strang Communications/ 
Charisma House/Siloam, 600 Rinehart Road, Lake Mary, Florida 
32746, or telephone (407) 333-0600. 

The Agenda by Rev. Louis R Sheldon 

Published by FrontLine 

A Strang Company 

600 Rinehart Road 

Lake Mary, Florida 32746 

This book or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form, stored 
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means — 
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise— without 
prior written permission of the publisher, except as provided by United 
States of America copyright law. 

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the King 
James Version of the Bible. 

Scripture quotations marked nkjv are from the New King James Ver- 
sion of the Bible. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, 

Inc., publishers. Used by permission. 

Cover design by Judith McKittrick 

Copyright © 2005 by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon 
All rights reserved 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Sheldon, Louis P. 

The agenda / Louis P. Sheldon, 
p. cm. 

Includes bibliographical references. 

ISBN 1-59185-796-1 (hardback) 

1. Homosexuality— Religious aspects— Christianity. 2. Gayrights- 
-Religious aspects— Christianity. 3. Homosexuality— United States. 
4. Gay rights— United States. 5. Gay liberation movement- -United 
States. I. Title. 

BR115.H6S54 2005 
261.8’35766’0973— dc22 


05 06 07 08 09 — 987654321 
Printed in the United States of America 


Introduction: Wanted: A Faithful Witness 
Part I: Facts and Fiction 

1 Destructive Forces 

2 A Campaign of Deception 

3 A Public Flealth Disaster 
Part II: Changing the Culture 

4 Beyond Law and Order 

5 Changes in the Workplace 

6 Taking Over the Schools 
Part III: Safeguarding the Future 

7 Safeguarding the Family 

8 Awakening the Church 

9 Restoring Traditional Values 

10 What's to Be Done? 






Homosexuality is out of sync with God's creation, and it is contrary 
to the natural order. A homosexual relationship is exactly the 
opposite of what God ordained. Take anything that was created or 
designed to operate one way and reverse the sequence of 
operation, and the inevitable result is destruction. Same-sex unions 
strike at the very image of God and the natural order. 


IT'S A SCENE you'll never forget, a reality you should never have to endure: 
Saturday night in a San Francisco bathhouse-a reality so sordid, so shocking, 
so sinful and morally repulsive you will never see it on the evening news. 
Howard Stem's pornographic radio and television broadcasts don't come 
close, and even the eighteenthcentury sensualist the Marquis de Sade could 
scarcely have imagined the sheer degradation and perversion that occur in 
places like this on a regular basis-virtually around the clock. 

Amidst all the posturing and campaigning for "equal rights" and "civil 
rights" by the homosexual lobby, pretending they only want the same 
privileges that other families enjoy, these scenes reveal the sordid tmth as 
well as the lies that prop up the homosexual agenda. And that's why you will 
never see them on the major networks. It's no accident that the media avoid 
these images like the plague: one glimpse of what really happens in the 
heartland of the homosexual movement and their campaign of deception 
would be finished. If middle America ever wakes up to what it's really all 
about -what homosexuals and lesbians actually do to one another and what 
they have in mind for your innocent sons and daughters-the "sacred cause" 
of sodomy would be forever lost. 

But, in a sense, that's precisely what needs to happen. While no one 
should ever be exposed to these conscience-searing and mindnumbing 
scenes of human depravity, this once Christian nation is under assault today 
as never before, and millions of Americans are in denial. They've either 
accepted the idea that homosexuality is a natural "alternative lifestyle;" or 
they've been cowed into silence by the fear-mongering and name-calling of 
those who, behind a banner of "tolerance" and "diversity;" seek to silence 
the truth and abolish moral judgment in any form. 

It's only too apparent now that it's not only foreign terrorists that we need 
to fear today. The most dangerous radicals who threaten our way of life are 

those who live among us. They already hold positions of esteem in 
government, the courts, our schools and colleges, and even the world of 
business; and you can be certain they will destroy us if we don't take steps 
to defeat their radical agenda now. Young people in our schools and colleges 
are being bombarded on virtually an hourly basis with false and misleading 
information in an effort to draw them into a dangerous and deadly 
conspiracy. And I'm sad to say that far too often it seems to be working. 

A column by homosexual activist Michael Swift, published in the Gay 
Community News in February 1987, then later reprinted in the 
Congressional Record, reveals the dark purposes of many in the socalled 
"gay rights movement" His long and vulgar diatribe expresses the growing 
sense of outrage many homosexuals feel for straight America. The article 
began with the shocking words: 

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, 
of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in 
your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your 
locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your 
youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army 
bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your 
houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your 
sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be 
recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. 

This vulgar attack went on for several paragraphs, describing in unfiltered 
detail the sort of perversion and hostility that lie at the root of this 
dangerous emotional disturbance. 

Clearly, these were not the words of a repressed minority seeking equal 
rights but a violent tirade from the pit of hell. Men and women determined 
to undermine the American way of life have a profound hatred for the 
Christian values that made this nation great. They want not only to redefine 
the concept of family and normal sexual relationships but also to destroy the 
family as we know it, and they have said as much. The promoters of the 
homosexual agenda are full of resentment and anger, mixed with self- 
loathing and shame, and they won't stop until they have eradicated every 
trace of morality and self-restraintunless by God's grace we decide to rise up 
and say no and somehow put a stop to their desperate gambit. 


Thanks to years of sophisticated public relations and the support of the 
major news media and educators at all levels, from kindergarten to the ivory 
tower, today's homosexual activists have managed to convince many of our 
neighbors that Christianity-and especially the Christian Right-is the real 
enemy. It's another example of the way they turn everything upside down. 

But make no mistake: those who are working night and day to abolish our 
capacity for moral judgment are the enemy we ought to fear. That is why I 
have written this book, to present the facts, to expose the hypocrisy and 
deceit, and to remind all Americans what we stand to lose if we fail to take 
action now to stop, once and for all, the agenda of the homosexual Left. 

This book examines the history of the homosexual movement and the 
ruthless tactics of the gay rights movement. In particular, I look at how the 
homosexual agenda has invaded our schools, colleges, workplaces, churches, 
and homes. From the Stonewall Riots of 1969 to the infamous 1993 Gay and 
Lesbian March on Washington, as well as the "gay pride" parades that are 
held in many American cities today, I have presented a retrospective of how 
widespread public acceptance of sexual deviance is being used as a weapon 
against Christianity and traditional moral values. 

I look in some depth at how the homosexuals have seized control of the 
mainstream media and the popular culture, and why the American 
Psychiatric Association capitulated to homosexual activists who forced these 
medical professionals to abandon their official policy that classified same- 
sex attraction as a mental disorder. And, of course, I also include a 
discussion of what you can do to help stop the radical transformation of our 
culture and how you can support the effort to protect future generations of 
young Americans from this insidious evil. 

Medical researchers and epidemiologists have shown that homosexual 
practices are invariably linked to serious and long-term illnesses. AIDS and 
HIV are foremost among them, of course, but today's homosexual-friendly 
culture is in denial about the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases in 
the gay community. With the active complicity of many on the political Left, 
there is a wide-scale effort to make us believe that homosexuality is a "civil 
right" and that AIDS is somehow a "badge of honor" rather than the medical 
scourge and worldwide epidemic it truly is. Fortunately, the African 
American community has been quick to challenge this fraud, making it clear 
that homosexuality is no civil right. And I tell that story as well. 

In his important book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey 
Satinover illustrates in graphic detail the terrible price exacted by 
homosexual acts on the human body. I've cited some of that information in 
these pages. Yet, despite reams of hard-hitting and authoritative information 
on this subject, and despite fifteen years of educational programs to teach 
young men and women how to avoid risky behaviors, the homosexual 
community continues to push their "deathstyle" more aggressively than ever. 
And thanks to the advocacy of Hollywood and the sympathetic news media, 
millions more will die as a result-as another generation of innocent children 
is being captured by their villainy and deception. 

Dr. John R. Diggs, a member of the Massachusetts Family Institute and an 
expert on the effects of AIDS and HIV, reports that the human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome 

(AIDS) are by far the leading causes for early mortality in the homosexual 
community. The infection rates for HIV are highest among homosexual men- 
as compared to the next most high-risk group, intravenous drug users-and 
substantially higher than that among heterosexual men and women. In some 
homosexual communities, HIV infections approach 50 percent. 
Furthermore: "High-risk behaviors;" as Dr. Diggs points out, "will continue to 
be associated with serious life-threatening consequences and significantly 
shortened life expectancies among gay and bisexual men." 

But is the homosexual community telling us this? Absolutely not. 
Homosexual men face extremely high risk for certain types of cancerous 
malignancies, including lymphoma and anal cancer. But you will never hear 
this on the news either. Research has shown that human papilloma virus 
(HPV) infections among gay men are primarily responsible for a high rate of 
anal cancer. The incidence of anal cancer among homosexual men now 
exceeds that of cervical cancer in women, but you'd have to be a detective 
to find facts like these in the highly charged political environment of today's 
homosexual movement. And this is a case where ignorance is not bliss. 

According to research by Dr. E. L. Goldman, 30 percent of currently 
twenty-year-old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the age of 
thirty. Equally distressing, the journal Omega reports that the average age of 
death for HIV-infected men is thirty-nine, while the average age of death of 
homosexual men from all other causes is just forty-two. The problem is not 
merely the type of sex preferred by homosexuals but the lifestyle they 
engage in. Disease, infections, alcohol and drug addition, and injury are 
common, and domestic violence is a major problem among both 
homosexual men and women-at a rate at least twice that of heterosexual 
couples. And the evidence of social and emotional dysfunction is equally 

Research by Drs. Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg reveals that 43 percent of 
white male homosexuals estimate having had sex with five hundred or more 
different partners, and 28 percent report more than a thousand sexual 
partners. Fully 79 percent of those surveyed admitted that at least half of 
their partners were strangers. A study in the early 1980s revealed that only 
about 2 percent of homosexuals are "monogamous or semi-monogamous;' 
which means that they've had ten or fewer partners in their lifetime. 


The power of the homosexual movement rests on two factual distortions. 
The first is that homosexuals are "bom gay" and cannot change. The second 
is the myth that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. The origin of 
both these claims, which have been shown false repeatedly by scientists, 
was the research of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who shocked the world in the 1940s 
and 1950s with statistics about human sexuality that were largely fabricated, 

falsified, and fraudulent. I examine Kinsey's work and his outrageous claims 
at length in chapter two. 

In fact, no one is bom "gay" Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgen- ders, 
as they like to be identified, are generally people who have suffered either 
emotional trauma or sexual abuse early in life and whose same-sex 
attractions in a large number of cases are actually the result of coping 
mechanisms compounded by inappropriate erotic stimulation during 
adolescence. There are many critical factors in such an assessment, of 
course, but the one certainty is that homosexuality is a choice that can be 
overcome and reversed, as many ex-gays-including some whose stories are 
told in the final section of this book-will attest. 

The average homosexual relationship is highly unstable and terribly 
unhappy. A 1982 study of AIDS victims by the U.S. Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention found that eleven hundred sexual partners was about 
average for gay men, with some reporting as many as twenty thousand 
partners in their lifetime. Such a life produces fear, anxiety, guilt, anger, 
and other disturbing emotions that can do great damage to the human soul. 
In addition, many surveys have confirmed the extremely high mortality rate 
among homosexuals due not only to AIDS, STDs, cancers, and bacterial 
infections, but also to violence, substance abuse, accidents, murder, and an 
inordinately high rate of suicide. It staggers the imagination that anyone 
trapped in these circumstances could willingly defend that lifestyle. By any 
standard, there is nothing "gay" about it. 

But the problems that arise from this highly sexualized and pathologically 
exploitative environment are not restricted to the homosexual community. 
The National Education Association (NEA) and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight 
Education Network (GLSEN) have teamed up to promote homosexuality in 
the nation's public schools. In fact, the president of the NEA, Robert Chase, 
was the featured speaker at GLSEN's annual conference in October 2000. In 
his address. Chase told members of the homosexual teachers organization 
that the NEA is committed to "ending bias and bigotry" against 
homosexuals, and he added that his union plans on developing resources to 
promote homosexuality to all students in the nation's schools. 

Is this what parents really want? Is this what schools ought to be doing? 
Like it or not, this is what children are being taught in virtually every 
schoolroom in this country, and it gets even worse. GLSEN claims more than 
twenty-five hundred chapters on school campuses, and the object of all of 
these clubs is to desensitize children and their parents to the perversion of 
homosexuality and to recruit the next generation of homosexuals in the 

A conference sponsored by GLSEN at Tufts University in Boston even 
taught teenagers how to perform "fisting" on their sexual partners, by 
showing them how to shove their fist and arm into the anus of another 

person. Instructors also discussed oral copulation and what they should 
know about swallowing semen and body fluids. Fortunately, this shocking 
bit of news was made public, and the citizens of that state were 
appropriately outraged, but many similar incidents go unreported. In another 
story, we learned of the high incidence of molestation of children in the 
public schools and the unusually high percentage of young boys who are 
victimized by their homosexual teachers. The same article revealed that girls 
molested in the classrooms, in many cases, actually develop an ongoing 
"relationship" with their abusers. 

Honest reporting of these crimes can help stop what's becoming an 
epidemic of perversion. But standing up takes courage and resources, 
particularly when the homosexual lobby has convinced many members of 
Congress, state legislatures, local governments, and even private businesses 
to enact antidiscrimination policies or "hate crimes" laws to punish people 
who protest against this disturbing movement on moral grounds. In these 
pages I look at how totalitarian measures are being pushed by United States 
senators, congressmen, governors, and mayors of many large cities to punish 
honest citizens who speak openly and honestly about the inherent dangers 
of homosexuality. And I also show how Christians are fighting back. 

Hate crimes laws are a form of legal apartheid-a new kind of segregation 
where individuals are "separate and unequal" under our system of justice. 
The vast majority of Americans do not accept the notion that the law should 
provide extra legal protections for certain individuals simply because of the 
way they engage in sex. Yet that is what the politically correct promoters of 
hate crimes laws are trying to do. 

Dr. Daniel Troy, a scholar and researcher at the American Enterprise 
Institute in Washington, says he fears that this new emphasis on creating 
racial, religious, gender, and other special interest groups can only divide the 
nation further. In testimony before Congress, Dr. Troy quoted historian 
Arthur Schlesinger who said that separatism of this kind "nourishes 
prejudices, magnifies differences, and stirs antagonisms" And, sadly, this 
seems to be precisely what the homosexual agenda is after-to divide, delude, 
and destroy our moral judgment. 


Throughout recorded history, and long before that, no doubt, the family has 
been the basis of civilized society. A father, a mother, and their children. 
This is the foundation and building block of the community and the 
cornerstone of social well-being. Yet, this is now the target of the 
homosexual agenda. The great aim of the homosexual lobby and its 
supporters, as quoted in many places in this book, is to eradicate the moral 
framework of American society and to elevate and legislate promiscuous 
couplings of every imaginable type. What they seek is not only the 

legalization but also the legitimization of deviant behaviors that the Bible 
(along with every great society) has referred to as an "abomination" 

Is there any chance of stopping this assault on morality? You be the 
judge. In November 2004, America witnessed the largest voter turnout in our 
history, and the driving force behind that monumental showing was the 22 
percent of people who identified themselves in exit polls as "values voters" 
They voted in overwhelming numbers for candidates who supported 
traditional moral values. And in the fourteen states that voted on initiatives 
to ban "same-sex marriage," every single one of those measures passed with 
unprecedented levels of support by the voters. Even in Oregon, which 
favored the Democrat candidate, John Kerry, and is well known for its 
liberal politics, the voters approved the ban on same-sex marriage by a 
whopping 57 percent. 

That election is over now, and the desires of these values voters will have 
to be translated into policy and laws, and that is another reason for this 
book. What happens at the polls in 2006, 2008, and 2012 will determine the 
fate of this nation. As we deal in the weeks and months ahead with a 
contentious Supreme Court, out-of-control federal judges, lawmakers bent 
on remaking this country in their own liberal image, along with liberal 
policymakers in our cities, schools, and universities, we will have our work 
cut out for us. We need facts, figures, and useful information to help us to 
fight the good fight. 

As a minister of the Christian gospel and chairman of the Traditional 
Values Coalition, I am deeply concerned about our moral wellbeing, and, for 
that matter, I worry about the survival of this nation. In a number of places 
in this book I look at the risks we face and how other nations that have 
trespassed God's moral order have fallen and disappeared in the sands of 
time. As we begin to deal with the dangers we face at this late hour, it's up 
to you and me, along with all those who care deeply about the welfare of 
future generations of Americans, to help restore our great legacy. We must 
take back this nation, by sheer moral force, and restore the foundations of 
moral order before it's too late. 

This has not been an easy book for me to write. The homosexual agenda is 
an all-out assault on everything we believe in and an attack on everything 
our Founding Fathers hoped to give us when they fought to establish this 
great nation. In many places in these pages you will encounter facts or 
language that may be troubling. I wish the story could be told in other ways, 
but if we want to resist what the homosexual lobby is doing to this country, 
then we can't afford to look away. We need to have the moral courage to 
face these facts in order to know our enemy. But the good news is that if 
we're strong enough and resilient enough in this battle, gaining knowledge 
that will help to empower our resistance, then I am convinced that we will 
witness a tremendous victory, and, with God's help, we shall overcome. 

What you will encounter in the chapters that follow is the witness of one 

man who has spent a large portion of the last thirty-three years learning 
about this dangerous agenda and standing against the tactics of a relentless 
enemy. The task has not been pleasant or easy, but I can do no less. To 
defend the God-given virtues and values of this nation is my calling, and it's 
in that spirit that I offer this work for your use and consideration. 

Part I, which follows now, is entitled "Facts and Fiction," and offers a 
broad look at the homosexual agenda and the dramatic differences between 
the fraudulent claims and the deadly realities of this devastating lifestyle. 
Part II, "Changing the Culture;" looks at how the homosexual lobby is 
attacking the American culture today in the courts, the workplace, and the 
schools. Part III, "Safeguarding the Future;" then explores areas where 
Christians and others are standing up to fight back. These chapters deal with 
safeguarding the family, awakening the power of the church, and restoring 
the moral fabric of the nation. In the final chapters, I offer an assessment 
and some suggestions for ways that you can be involved. 

All in all, my goal in preparing this work has been to help each reader 
understand how pernicious the homosexual agenda truly is, and to call forth 
millions of faithful men and women-very much like that faithful 22 percent 
that took charge in the November 2004 elections-to rise in the defense of 
marriage, the family, and this great nation, for which the founders were 
willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. 

I pray that God will inspire you to be a part of this great undertaking and 
that you will make a renewed commitment to restoring moral judgment in 
our land. 



The homosexual movement has been very successful at removing 
the sensitivity and stigma formerly associated with non- 
heterosexual attractions. The whole sexual liberation movement, 
hetero as well as homo, has experdy manipulated public opinion 
for close to half a century. People are so afraid of "judge not, lest 
ye be judged" that they feel they must tolerate anything. 


THE MORAL DEBATE that politicians and pundits refer to as the culture war 
in America is a real war, in every sense of the word. It's not just a clever turn 
of phrase or some kind of journalistic shorthand, but a dynamic 
confrontation, as sociologist James Davison Hunter has said, between forces 
with two dramatically different visions for America. It's a stmggle to define 
who we are, what we believe, and how we will live our lives in this modem 

On one side of this war are those who believe in traditional moral values 
and biblical standards of right and wrong. We are defending historic moral 
principles that have undergirded American society for more than three 
hundred years-and we are fighting to preserve the integrity of our homes and 
our families. On the other side are those who believe that anything goes. 
They are men and women who will accept no civil restraint or moral limits 
on their sexual freedom. The result is that we're engaged in a life-and-death 
stmggle, with fierce battles, real casualties, and very real consequences. For 
those of us who adhere to a traditional understanding of faith, family, and 
freedom, the stakes could not be higher. 

At a time when America's military is already battling terrorists halfway 
around the world, we find ourselves engaged in mortal combat at home as 
well. The forces of darkness are arrayed against us on many fronts. The 
battlefields of today's culture war are well known to most of us. They 
include issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the education of our children, 
day care, feminism, multiculturalism, judicial activism, resisting the anti- 
Christian and anti-American bias of the liberal media, and fending off the 
increasingly aggressive forays of those on the social and political Left against 
religious liberty and biblical interpretation. 


Most recently we have witnessed a series of controversial attacks on 
public expressions of religion, including the attempt by atheist attorney 
Michael Newdow to strip the words "under God" from the Pledge of 
Allegiance, followed by his efforts to prevent President George W. Bush from 
taking the Oath of Office in January 2005 with his hand on the Bible-a 
custom dating back to George Washington. Apparently there is no area of 
faith or morality the Left won't attack, but there is no area of dispute more 
volatile or more important to America's future than that which is the subject 
of this book: the legitimization and normalization of homosexuality. 

Thanks to years of social conditioning and the constant drumbeat of 
homosexual activists-aided by their allies in the media-many people have 
apparently decided that homosexuality is no longer a matter of concern. 
Either homosexuals have a right to do as they please in the privacy of their 
own homes, or, as some would say, "It's nobody's business but their own!" 
So, they ask, what right do we have to impose our morals on the rest of 

There was a time when the answers to such questions would have been 
obvious. Not only were there cultural prohibitions on behaviors of this kind- 
with a four-thousand-year history of cultural dis appro val-but statistics 
regarding death, disease, and the other social dysfunctions associated with 
homosexuality were too overpowering to ignore. But that is no longer the 
case. As much as anything else, the homosexual agenda has been a carefully 
crafted plan to blind ordinary Americans to the truth. Through lies, 
disinformation, falsified data, and manipulation of the news media, 
homosexual activists have shielded millions from a reality so obvious that 
only a morally impoverished nation could fail to see it. 

From the beginning, the homosexual agenda to erase moral values from 
our minds and our public policy has been so relentless and so successful 
that a practical understanding of the risks of homosexual behavior can no 
longer be assumed. 

The greatest tragedy as a result of this agenda is precious lives are being 
lost every day. Thousands are dying either from their own bad choices or 
from ignorance about the genuine dangers of the "gay lifestyle" The entire 
agenda of the homosexual Left is founded upon a conspiracy of ignorance, 
superimposed over a sophisticated public relations campaign designed by 
homosexual activists to normalize their lifestyle and induce millions of 
young people to experiment sexually-often with deadly consequences. 

But no matter how much they may try to force middle America to accept 
a "live and let live" philosophy, we will never do that. For one thing, the gay 
and lesbian community will not settle for mere "tolerance" They have a 
strategic plan to enforce, not just tolerate, complete acceptance and 
affirmation of their lifestyle. They will settle for nothing less than the utter 
defeat of all who oppose them. But also, Christian compassion forbids us to 


concede the victory while so many innocent lives are still at risk. So the 
struggle continues, and the signs of war are all around us. 


The news from Canada and Europe ought to give us fair warning of where 
this battle may be headed if we fail to react appropriately. The Human 
Rights Commission of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan recently 
decided that a newspaper ad that quoted biblical passages about 
homosexuality was a "human rights offense" Subsequently, both the 
newspaper and the individual who placed the ad were forced to pay three 
homosexual accusers $1,500 each. During the same period, the Supreme 
Court of British Columbia upheld the suspension without pay of a high 
school teacher because he had written a letter to the editor of his local 
newspaper stating his belief that "no one is bom homosexual. " 

Unfortunately, cases like these are not unique. Wherever homosexuality is 
recognized as a viable alternative lifestyle, anyone who dares to speak out 
with a different point of view may be subjected to harsh penalties. In 
England, for example, the Right Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, the Anglican 
bishop of Chester, was investigated by Cheshire police under hate crimes 
laws for merely saying that some people can overcome homosexual 
inclinations and "reorientate" themselves . In January 2004, a Christian 
pastor in Sweden was prosecuted for "hate speech" after giving a sermon 
that included biblical references to homosexuality. In Belgium, Cardinal 
Gustaaf Joos was sued for comments he made in a local magazine about 
homosexuality. And in Spain, Cardinal Antonio Varela is facing legal action 
for speaking against homosexuality in a sermon at the Cathedral of Madrid. 

And this is only a sample of what is ahead for this country if homosexual 
efforts to abolish moral judgment are successful. If things continue at the 
pace they're on, homosexuality will soon be not just a tolerated behavior but 
a civil right, and same-sex relationships will be deemed morally superior to 
heterosexual relationships. This has been the stated goal of gay activists 
from the first. And it's not hard to imagine that, if they have their way, 
"homosexual rights" will become the unquestioned law of the land. 

I can attest from my own experience that there are physical and 
emotional risks involved in defending the truth against the promoters of the 
homosexual agenda. I have been attacked, insulted, threatened, and 
physically accosted by homosexuals dozens of times over the last twenty 
years, and I have feared for the safety of my wife and family more than 
once. But I have not been intimidated by them, because I know that truth is 
on our side. On one occasion, the liberal pundit Jimmy Breslin attempted to 
vilify me in a column, which appeared on April 7, 2004, that quoted me as 
saying that, "Homosexuals are dangerous.... They proselytize. They come to 
the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab 


the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn 
him into a homosexual" 

Of course, I never said anything of the kind, and I don't remember ever 
being interviewed by the self-described "hard-drinking" columnist. So I got in 
touch with the editors of Newsday, where his column appears, and we went 
back and forth for some time. When the smoke finally cleared, Newsday 
apologized to me. Breslin claimed he had conducted that so-called 
"interview" twelve years earlier at the Republican National Convention. He 
had no notes, of course, and little more than a vague recollection of a brief 
meeting in a hallway. The Associated Press reported later that Newsday 
issued a retraction, saying that Breslin's column "did not adhere to 
Newsday's standard of publishing only direct quotations that are accurate 
and precise." 

When the AP reporter asked Newsday editor Les Payne whether or not 
Breslin would be punished for his false statements, Payne said simply, 
"Obviously, whatever action is taken, we keep it in house.... " And then he 
added, "He [Breslin] made a mistake, and he admits that" That remains an 
important illustration, for me and others who lobby with me in Washington, 
of the value of standing your ground. While there are many conservative 
media watchdog groups, few have been able to get an acknowledgment of 
journalistic wrongdoing at the level of the Jimmy Breslin/Newsday episode. 

But I will also say that the ground I stand on is much too solid for me to 
be defeated or to lose confidence in the face of adversity. Whether it's 
homosexual hit squads, angry activists, or irate columnists. I'm not going to 
take my eyes off of the goal, because the need is too great. There will always 
be many challenges for those who stand on moral principle, but there's a lot 
we can do to help turn the tide if we are willing to stand our ground and 
respond in a conscientious manner. I will chronicle other incidents where 
I've had to stand against these activists, and in more detail, in subsequent 


To understand what we're up against, a little history is in order. According to 
one sympathetic account, the modem homosexual movement in America 
began as part of the trend toward urbanization in the late nineteenth century 
when dislocated workers began leaving the family farms and moving to the 
big cities. Many who were separated from their families in those days took 
jobs that were often dirty and dehumanizing, and along the way some of 
them succumbed to the lure of alcohol and sexual vice. In places like San 
Francisco's Barbary Coast district. New York's Greenwich Village, and the 
New Orleans French Quarter, it was easy for young men to fall in with 
companions with low morals and few scmples, and before long a 
homosexual subculture began to emerge. 


In addition to the brothels and saloons of the era, a number of bars 
sprang up that catered primarily to homosexuals. To avoid scrutiny and 
protect their clientele from arrest, the owners of those places often paid 
protection money to corrupt public officials or police, and the bond of 
secrecy that developed around these hangouts helped to create a sense of 
unity (and conspiracy) among the patrons, which contributed to the birth of 
the homosexual movement. 

From the earliest foundations of America to the mid-1960s, the penalty 
for homosexual behavior was serious indeed. Every state had laws that made 
homosexuality a crime, and a guilty verdict could lead to imprisonment or 
admission to a mental institution. During the Second World War, however, 
changes began to creep in. When millions of servicemen were sent off to the 
front, many civilian jobs that had been held by men were taken by women. 
Before long the workforce was predominantly made up of women, and this 
newfound independence, accompanied by greater access to alcohol and 
sexual experimentation, led to a breakdown in traditional sex roles for 
women as well, and the historic bulwark of chastity and feminine modesty 
began to break down. 

When the war ended, many who had tasted forbidden fruits, either in the 
military service or in the wartime economy, found the doors suddenly 
closing on their illicit activities. But, as one writer has put it, "the genie of 
lesbian and gay experimentation had been let out of the bottle. Things could 
never be quite the same again." During the war, the port cities of New 
York, San Francisco, and New Orleans became havens for all sorts of 
hedonistic activities. Bars and brothels were common, and before long 
homosexual enclaves became common as well. 

For whatever reasons, California's lawmakers were apparently more 
tolerant of such vices, and over the next several years tens of thousands of 
lesbians and homosexual men relocated to the state. Artists, poets, 
musicians, and actors who had long been associated with alcohol and drug 
abuse were among the first to be attracted by the new atmosphere of 
rebellion against traditional morality and the sexual promiscuity that came 
with it. After the "Beat" movement took root in the San Francisco Bay Area, 
popularized by writers such as Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg, and Gregory 
Corso in the forties and fifties, the region became known as "the capital of 
the homosexual movement in America." 

But the 1950s had a serious side as well, and the House UnAmerican 
Activities Committee, headed by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, 
soon discovered that the homosexual community in this country was 
permeated by communists. In fact, the foremost leader of the so-called 
"homophile" movement at the time, Harry Hay, was not only a flagrant 
homosexual but also a long-standing member of the Communist Party USA, 
and he had been trained in the Soviet Union. 


Under the Bolsheviks during the 1920s, the communists in Russia had 
been tolerant of all sorts of deviant behavior, and at one point the 
decriminalization of homosexuality was a platform issue. Later, however, 
when Joseph Stalin came to power, the Soviets launched a purge of known 
homosexuals, and it was at that point, during the mid-fifties, that Harry Hay 
left the Communist Party to launch a movement of his own called the 
Mattachine Society, dedicated to the protection and promotion of 

In this new role. Hay called for "an ethical homosexual culture" and 
compared the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks, Jews, and Mexican 
Americans. He then organized what he termed "discussion groups" to 
promote the gay agenda and to assure gay men and lesbians that the guilt 
and discomfort they felt because of their sexual choices were the result of 
"social conditioning," and not because of any flawlet alone any sin-in their 
own lives. 


Early on, the Mattachine Society developed a network of cells very much in 
the style of the Communist Party USA, arranged in five tiers or "orders" The 
leaders of the movement made up, not surprisingly, the fifth or highest 
order. Those in the lower echelons were given a range of duties and 
responsibilities, including recruiting new members, setting up community 
meetings and activist rallies, and interacting with the press. 

Over the next several years, the Mattachine Society experienced many ups 
and downs and sudden changes of fortune. In 1952 they managed to block 
the prosecution of a homosexual man when it was shown that he had been a 
victim of police entrapment. This appeared to be a welcome victory for the 
cause, but the group's ties to the communists, and the deeply held religious 
beliefs of most Americans-combined with the natural repulsion most people 
felt toward homosexuality-meant that Harry Hay and his colleagues were still 
perceived by most people as a group of dangerous agitators and sexual 

During the fifties, members of the Mattachine Society participated in civil 
rights marches in the South, not only to substantiate their leftist credentials 
but to recruit supporters for their cause. One of these men, Frank Kameny, a 
government worker who had been fired when his homosexuality was 
exposed, became a spokesman for the "homophile movement" and declared 
himself a "full-time activist" for "gay rights" 

Kameny said he would do for homosexuals what Martin Luther King Jr. 
was doing for blacks, and when the phrase "Black is beautiful" became a 
popular slogan of the civil rights movement, Kameny came up with the 
phrase, "Gay is good." Those words were less convincing for most 


Americans, but other factors were about to come into play that would 
change everything. 

Just over a decade after Harry Hay launched the Mattachine Society, 
America was engaged in a full-blown social and cultural revolution. Thanks 
to the radical teachings of left-wing academics such as Herbert Marcuse, 
Theodor Adorno, Antonio Gramsci, and others on the Left, American 
university campuses were suddenly ablaze with protests against everything 
from grading standards to the War in Vietnam. From Columbia in the east to 
Berkeley in the west, there were marches and riots, with students chanting 
the slogans of the "black power" movement, the women's movement, the 
"free love" movement, and much more. In the middle of all this radicalism 
and revolt, the fledgling homosexual movement suddenly lurched out of the 
closet and into the mainstream. 

Today, gay activists can be found in virtually every large city in America, 
and every large university (with few exceptions) offers its students a "gay 
and lesbian track." In the guise of fighting prejudice and discrimination 
toward gay men and women, these activists are actively promoting the 
homosexual lifestyle to our children and working with elements of the media 
and the national teachers unions to indoctrinate kids as young as four and 
five years old into accepting (and experimenting with) dangerous sexual 

Predictably, the homosexual cause was taken up by the American Civil 
Liberties Union (ACLU), whose roots were also in the Communist Party USA, 
and suddenly homosexuals began winning cases in court and gaining new 
converts in many other segments of the culture. But the greatest coup of 
the homosexual movement by far was coercing the American Psychiatric 
Association (APA) in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of "mental 
disorders" in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 
(DSM). This sudden change of policy was not based on any new scientific 
evidence, but it was a purely political move, brought about by a relentless 
campaign of threats, intimidation, and collusion between certain members 
of the APA and the homosexual activist lobby. 

By 1968, representatives of the homosexual Left had approached officers 
of various psychiatric organizations and their standards committees, 
demanding that these organizations reclassify same-sex attractions as a 
normal manifestation of human sexuality. Activists realized early in the 
campaign that their only hope of gaining broad public acceptance for their 
practices would be if the members of the psychiatric community were to 
change their policies and remove the stigma, as old as the helping 
professions themselves, that identified homosexuality as a "mental disorder" 



In an effort to slow down this initiative, which some individuals were trying 
to ram through the organization, the APA agreed to participate in a three- 
year study of the issue to determine what their future policy on 
homosexuality ought to be. But from the first, members of the APA's 
Homosexuality Task Force collaborated actively with homosexual 
organizations such as the Mattachine Society, the Gay Activist's Alliance, and 
a lesbian group known as the Daughters of Bilitis, and at the same time they 
ignored any research or anecdotal evidence that was not favorable to the 
homosexual agenda. 

Dr. Abram Kardiner, a former professor of psychiatry at Columbia 
University, reported that, "A powerful lobby of ' gay' organizations has 
brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove 
homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the 

tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country.... 

Throughout this review process, as related later by Paul Gebhard, who 
was a colleague of the radical sexologist Alfred Kinsey, anyone known to 
harbor the belief that homosexuality was a mental disorder was excluded 
from being a member of the Task Force. And those who might wish to speak 
up in defense of the historic standards of the organization were denied the 
right to speak or even to submit written comments. Any psychiatrist or 
psychoanalyst who attempted to present documentation indicating that 
homosexuality was a psychological disorder was shouted down. Some 
individuals were physically attacked at public forums and threatened with 
bodily harm at conferences, meetings, and other professional events. 

Eventually their efforts paid off, and in 1972 the National Institute of 
Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality reported that "exclusive 
heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality" are "sexual extremes;' and that 
most people are naturally bisexual. That report certainly influenced the 
APA's deliberations. To make their own report appear more scientific, 
however, the Homosexuality Task Force sent out a letter to all members. 
These letters didn't ask whether or not the members agreed that 
homosexuality should be "normalized" Rather, they were signed by 
candidates for the APR's upcoming officers elections, urging members to 
"vote" that homosexuality should be declared equivalent to heterosexual 
relations and equally valid. 

Nothing in the letters indicated that they had been written and funded by 
the National Gay Task Force. One of the signers confessed later that 
admitting the bias of the signers would have been the "kiss of death" for the 
pro-homosexual vote they were after. But thanks to their long trail of deceit 
and coercion, the measure passed narrowly, and the 1973 edition of the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the APA reported that homosexuality 
would henceforth be referred to by its members as a normal and appropriate 
sexual orientation. 


Not everyone in the APA was so easily persuaded, however. Dr. Henry 
Reicken cut straight to the heart of the matter in a strongly worded dissent 
printed in the Appendix to the NIMH report. His statement, under the 
heading "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations 
on Social Policy;" accused the task force of unprofessional (if not unethical) 
conduct. He said: 

It is as if they "the Task Force" said, "Here is a phenomenon about 
which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great 
deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major 
revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon" I 
cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable 
conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation 
in which we find ourselves. 

The point was that the sudden reversal of the APA's position on 
homosexuality was not the result of a scientific study, but a crass political 
coup pulled off by a gang of conspirators from outside the organization and 
their willing accomplices on the inside. 

In 1977, four years after the APA changed its mind on this critical issue, 
the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported that a poll of 2,500 
psychiatrists on their view of "current thinking on homosexuality" 
surprisingly found that fully 69 percent of the respondents agreed that 
homosexuality is usually "a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal 
variation" Less than 20 percent of the respondents to the survey expressed a 
different opinion. 


Dr. Charles Socarides is a prominent psychiatrist who does not hesitate to 
speak openly and honestly to his homosexual patients, and he has helped to 
chronicle the spread of gay rights in this country over the past forty years. 
Evidence of the intransigence of many in the movement can be found in the 
pathology of the disorder. I remember very well Dr. Socarides' comment to 
me that he was able to cure fully 50 percent of his homosexual patients; 25 
percent changed on their own, and the other 25 percent were emotionally 
unable to overcome the disorder. 

Socarides has also written an unflinching analysis of the 1972 APA 
decision in which he says that the most chilling statement of the 
homosexual agenda he ever heard was spelled out in shocking detail in a 
pamphlet called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and 
Hatred of Gays in the 1990s, written by two Harvard-educated sociologists, 
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. "That book," he says, "turned out to be 
the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the 
abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by 


Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work Thought Reform and the Psychology of 
Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China." 

In their disturbingly transparent treatise, Kirk and Madsen describe 
indoctrination and brainwashing techniques that were used successfully to 
transform the nation of China into a revolutionary "People's Republic" 
during the infamous "Cultural Revolution" of the latel960s. This work was 
carried out by silencing critics, staging protests and riots, and using every 
tool of intimidation and violence to overpower their critics. Kirk and Madsen 
understood how the revolution had been won in China, and they believed 
that-with enough time, enough money, and enough influence within the 
media and the popular culture-the homosexual community could force their 
goals (if not their values) down Americans' throats, whether we liked it or 

The techniques they prescribed were labeled "desensitization, jamming, 
and conversion" First of all, they proposed that the homosexual community 
must desensitize the American people to what homosexuality is all about by 
spreading the idea that gays are "just like everyone else" Second, they would 
attempt to shame conscientious resisters and moral conservatives by 
labeling them as "homophobes" and "bigots" This was what they called 
jamming. They said: 

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a 
conflicting twinge of shame.... Thus, propagandistic advertisement 
can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude 
loudmouths.... It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. 

It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct 
result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would 
be ashamed to be the cause. 

When the process was effective and resisters were effectively silenced, 
they would achieve what the authors referred to as conversion. Their agenda 
could be successfully enforced, they reasoned, by keeping up intense 
pressure on Christians and other moral critics. Eventually, through the 
combined impact of all these forms of pressure, there would be a "change of 
heart" in the general population. "Conversion aims at just this;" they wrote, 
"conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will through a 
planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via 
the media. " 

If you think that agenda is too outrageous to be real, just look at what has 
happened over the last thirty years. In 1973, the American Psychiatric 
Association removed homosexuality from its list of emotional disorders. By 
the late 1970s, homosexual groups were making major inroads into the 
largest religious denominations in the country, while dozens of homosexual 
political action committees formed over the previous decade continued to 
shake things up on the political scene and to make resistance to 


homosexuality in all areas of life a very unpleasant experience. 

Between 1972 and 1978, at least forty state legislatures granted "civil 
rights" to homosexuals comparable to those accorded to ethnic minorities. 

At least twenty states repealed their sodomy laws, and in 2003 the United 
States Supreme Court, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, ruled the sodomy 
laws of Texas unconstitutional, forcing by implication all fifty states to take 
similar action. All across the country, openly gay political candidates have 
been elected to public office, ranging from local city councils to the United 
States House of Representatives. And in 2004, the state of Massachusetts 
and the city of San Francisco, California, both began issuing marriage 
licenses to same-sex couples. The combined result is that today there is 
virtually no area of society where homosexuals do not have a highly visible 


The 1972 platform of the gay rights movement alerted average Americans to 
where this issue is headed. The agenda included a program of sweeping 
changes to virtually all the basic institutions of society. The following 
objectives were included in the list of demands announced by the Gay and 
Lesbian Task Force during their March on Washington in 1993: 

■ Implementation of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at 
all levels of education. 

■ Lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex 

■ Legalization of homosexual marriages 

■ Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and 
transgendered persons 

■ The redefinition of "family" to include the full diversity of all structured 

■ Access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America 

■ Affirmative action for homosexuals 

■ The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan 

I will deal with this list of demands in more detail later, but is there any 
chance that these or any of the other fifty-four demands of homosexual 
activists will actually be met? Read the headlines. Every day, it seems, 
another fortress of America's traditional moral values faces the wrecking 
ball, while judges, juries, and legislators tell us that the values we once took 
for granted can no longer be invoked. More and more it seems, Christian 


virtues are forbidden, while sexual hedonism is everywhere exalted and 
homosexual behavior may not be challenged. 

For most of the last decade, the liberal media have trumpeted the news 
that researchers have found proof that homosexuality is innate, genetic, and 
normal behavior within a sizable percentage of the population. In particular, 
the findings of researchers Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer were held up as 
irrefutable proof that homosexuality was innate and inborn. News accounts 
suggested that these new discoveries only confirmed what homosexual 
activists had been saying for years and proved at last that anyone who 
objects to homosexuality is bigoted, ignorant, and a danger to society. 

The only problem was that their findings, along with their methodology, 
were imprecise, unorthodox, and chock full of holes. Reports fed to the 
media were misleading, and the stories they generated were quickly proven 
false. In the wake of all the sensationalism, researchers at Yale, MIT, 
Columbia, and the Washington University School of Medicine pointed out 
the errors in LeVay and Hamer's findings, denying that any of the data or 
accompanying analysis could substantiate their claim of a so-called "gay 
gene" Some analysts even said that a proper interpretation of the data would 
lead to the precise opposite conclusion. But, predictably, evidence indicating 
that homosexuality is a learned behavior and not a genetic trait went mostly 
unreported by the media. 

Fortunately, politically correct spin and wishful thinking cannot change 
the facts. The tactics proposed by Kirk and Madsen have had a profound 
effect on the culture, but the facts speak for themselves. Homosexuality is 
an emotional disorder with deep psychological roots, but it is also, despite 
arguments to the contrary, a learned behavior. Homosexuals have waged a 
relentless campaign for decades to focus the debate on "rights" instead of 
"behavior;" but they haven't convinced everyone quite yet. 

In the age of civil rights, the gay rights lobby understood that their 
chances of winning public acceptance would be greater if homosexuals and 
lesbians were perceived as oppressed minorities rather than as the sexual 
hedonists they are. The last thing they wanted America to think about was 
what they actually do behind closed doors. 

But not everyone is buying the cover-up. African Americans and Hispanics 
who have won legitimate civil rights victories since the 1960s have a right to 
be offended by the claims of the homosexual lobby. Former Secretary of 
State Colin Powell, expressing opposition to President Clinton's efforts to 
permit gays to serve in the military, remarked, "Skin color is a benign, non- 
behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of 
human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but 
invalid argument.' ' 

The point is well made: skin color is morally neutral and tells nothing 
about the character of a person. Sexual behavior, on the other hand, has 


everything to do with character and tells us a great deal about the person. 
But these are facts that the homosexual community wants Americans- 
particularly young Americans-to simply ignore. 


The gay rights movement has trumpeted its successes, and perhaps that's 
only fair. They have done the impossible by turning an ancient sin once 
punishable by death into a celebrated and protected right, practically 
overnight. But before they celebrate too much, there's one troubling fact of 
history they ought to consider: namely, the rise and fall of nations. For 
hundreds of years historians have chronicled the fate of empires, large and 
small, and the lessons are painfully clear. The excesses of sexual libertinism, 
combined with social and economic decay, have led to the collapse of great 
societies since the beginning of time. And America is by no means immune 
from such a fate. 

Empires that once rose to greatness as a direct result of temperance, self- 
restraint, and obedience to established moral and ethical standards have 
collapsed in shame and humiliation because they failed to hold firmly 
enough to the beliefs and values that made them great. The spectacle is sad 
but true. But will this also be the fate of America? Will this once proud 
nation, the world's longest surviving constitutional republic and a beacon of 
liberty to the world for centuries, succumb at last to an excess of the very 
liberties we have treasured and defended? If you doubt that it could happen 
here, then you haven't been paying attention. 

In his 1979 book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, Christian sociologist 
Carl Wilson outlines the dangers facing traditional marriage and the family in 
today's increasingly sexualized culture. Wilson recognized what would 
happen to the family if American society continues to be tolerant of every 
sort of sexual perversion, and his analysis was eye-opening. 

History reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual 
immorality becomes rampant. If the traditional family is discarded in favor 
of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism, 
cultural norms cannot survive. In that landmark study, Wilson cited the 
writings of the great British anthropologist J. D. Unwin, whose 1934 book, 
Sex and Culture, chronicled the decline of dozens of cultures. Looking at the 
history of some eighty-six different empires of history, Unwin presented 
some shocking facts, among which was his discovery that no nation that 
rejected premarital sexual chastity and monogamy in marriage survived 
longer than a generation after it had embraced sexual hedonism. 

Unwin put it this way: 

In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its 


energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition 
which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence. 

In other words, premarital sex and sex outside of marriage will destroy the 
vitality of any civilization. 

Very much as the British historian Arnold Toynbee reported in his 
massive, lifelong research project, A Study of History, Unwin saw that 
nations that valued traditional marriage and sexual abstinence were creative 
and productive. These cultures flourished. He described it as a cultural 
energy that could only be maintained so long as sexual activities were 
restricted to traditional patterns of fidelity within the sacred bonds of 

Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who authored another classic work in 
this field. The American Sex Revolution, observed much the same thing. In 
his review of the breakdown of tradition that began in the late 1960s, 
Sorokin warned that America was in the process of committing "voluntary 
suicide" through unrestrained sexual indulgence. As individuals began 
engaging in premarital sex unrelated to marriage, Sorokin predicted with 
remarkable insight that the birth rate would decline and our nation would 
begin to be depopulated. He also predicted the inevitable increase in 
divorce, desertion, and an epidemic of sexual promiscuity resulting in a rise 
in illegitimate births and abortions. As we now know, those predictions have 
all come true in the most heartbreaking ways, and society is paying a terrible 

Sorokin's exhaustive study of decadent cultures convinced him that a 
healthy society can only survive so long as strong families exist and sexual 
activities are restricted to marriage. Centuries of solid evidence make the 
point only too well: sexual promiscuity and a loss of respect for the sanctity 
of marriage lead inevitably to cultural decline and eventual collapse. 

In his research project, Carl Wilson found that decadent cultures display 
seven distinct characteristics of social and moral change: 

1. Men reject spiritual and moral development as the leaders of families. 

2. Men begin to neglect their families in search of material gain. 

3. Men begin to engage in adulterous relationships or in homosexual sex. 

4. Women begin to devalue the role of motherhood and homemaker. 

5. Husbands and wives begin to compete with each other, and families 

6. Selfish individualism fragments society into warring factions. 


7. Men and women lose their faith in God and reject all authority over their 

It is not surprising that in such a culture moral anarchy reigns supreme. 
The loss of religious faith means that virtues such as trust, honor, and 
respect must fail, and the customs of chastity and selfdenial no longer 
restrain society's worst impulses. Then, once families begin to collapse, the 
entire society follows. The point is very simple. George Santayana said it 
long ago: those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. 
And, once cultural decline begins, it's almost impossible to turn things 


In his compelling little book The Broken Hearth, former Secretary of 
Education William Bennett offers a dramatic assessment of America's 
predicament at this hour: 

My concern is that we are now embarked upon an experiment that 
violates a universal social law: In attempting to raise children 
without two parents, we are seeing, on a massive scale, the 
voluntary breakup of the minimal family unit. This is historically 
unprecedented, an authentic cultural revolution-and, I believe, 
socially calamitous. We may be under the illusion that we can 
cheerfully deconstruct marriage and then one day decide to pull 
back from the brink. But as a friend of mine puts it, once you 
shoot out the lights, can you shoot them back on again? As the 
long record of human experimentation attests, civilizations, even 
great civilizations, are more fragile and perishable than we think. 

If our society is to avoid the disasters that come from such a dangerous 
shift in the social and moral order, we must strengthen traditional marriage 
and promote the value of strong families in our schools, our churches, and 
our homes. We must promote abstinence before marriage and reject 
attempts to undermine the laws of human nature by redefining marriage to 
include nonmonogamous couples. To do less would be unthinkable. But in 
order to empower those who are determined to stand against the tide of 
moral relativism, we need more and better resources. 

Even highly motivated and well-meaning citizens need encouragement to 
stand up against the tidal wave of popular culture. And we especially need 
support for our views about marriage, the family, and human sexuality. In a 
society with a media climate that has become hostile to the Christian 
religion and traditional values, good intentions aren't enough. We need 
motivation and inspiration to empower every man, woman, and child to 
withstand the destructive forces that threaten our nation's survival. And that 
only comes with a solid faith commitment. 


The constant barrage of pro-homosexual programming makes it difficult 
for young men and women to escape the indoctrination. High-school age 
and younger children are already damaged by family disintegration, the 
erotic images of television and the movies, vulgar rock music, a wide-open 
Internet, and other media that contribute to identity confusion. Some 
vulnerable children are being catapulted into destructive and desperately 
unhappy behaviors. 

It is not coincidental that, from earliest times, homosexuality has been 
discouraged. Civilized societies promote traditional families, founded on a 
lifelong commitment of marriage between a man and a woman, and the 
bearing and/or adoption of children. The encouragement of family 
formation has allowed societies to prosper, to reproduce themselves, to 
avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and to provide healthy nurture and 
training for future generations. We turn our backs on that sane and 
responsible model only at our great peril. 

This book has been written as an urgent appeal for a return to a safe, 
sane, and responsible understanding of human sexuality. My purpose 
throughout these pages is to awaken each reader to the seriousness of the 
issues. Homosexual activism is at the center of an enormous cultural debate, 
and I want to make a case for a renewal of morality and self-restraint-to 
restore the foundations of decency throughout American society while 
there's still time. 

On many occasions homosexual activists have said that the only thing 
standing between them and full acceptance of the homosexual agenda is the 
Christian activist who believes in the Christian gospel and who holds to 
biblical standards of right and wrong. Clearly, we are the main target of a 
massive public relations campaign, and when we come against what the 
homosexuals stand for, things really start to light up. But that must not deter 

President Abraham Lincoln reportedly said to a White House guest in 
1865, "It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you 
can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the 
people all of the time" Christian morality is under attack in this country as 
never before, but sooner or later the truth will be visible to everyone, for, 
indeed, you can't fool all the people all the time. It's with that conviction 
that I have prepared this work. God is with us, and we will not be silenced. 




You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that 
homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to 
think that it is just another thing with a shrug of their shoulders, 
then your batde for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to 
get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear 
mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A largescale media 
campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in 


FOR AT LEAST the last two thousand years, civilized people have understood 
the nature of homosexuality and the social, physical, and emotional 
problems involved. Every great society has condemned it, and the Bible 
leaves nothing to the imagination. Repeatedly, from Leviticus in the Old 
Testament to First Corinthians in the New, we are warned of God's judgment 
of sexual sin and the condemnation upon individuals-and entire nations-that 
ignore those stem warnings. It's impossible to interpret St. Paul's words any 
other way: those who willingly indulge in hedonistic sexual activities have 
no place in God's perfect order (1 Cor. 6:9-10). 

The historic, cultural, and religious proscriptions against homosexuality 
make the point very well that there is simply no grounds for the notion that 
homosexual practice is a legitimate social good, or that it was ever 
considered normative in our culture. As I often say when I speak on this 
topic, "The body parts don't fit!" The male body and the female body were 
designed to complement one another: they're part of a set with a dynamic 
and creative purpose. In The Bible and Homosexual Practice, author and 
Bible scholar Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon points out what's really at stake in the 
homosexual debate and reminds us of the undeniable fact that "same-sex 
intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional 
design of the created order." To confuse the form and function of our 
bodies, and to misuse them through homosexual intercourse, is not only 
physical abuse but an act of willful rebellion. Dr. Gagnon goes on to say 

It degrades the participants when they disregard culture's obvious 


clues, and results in destructive consequences for them as well as 
for society as a whole. These consequences include matters of 
health (catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life 
expectancy) and morals (unstable and destabilizing patterns of 
sexual behavior where short-term and non-monogamous 
relationships constitute the rule rather than the exception). 

How much clearer could it be? In light of so much history, and with such 
alarming evidence of social and moral disorder, the attempt to convince 
people that homosexuality is a reasonable and normal lifestyle would require 
an act of incomparable deception and a level of cold-hearted calculation 
almost inconceivable in a civilized world. But that's exactly what the gay 
rights movement has done. By manipulation of public opinion, by loud and 
offensive denunciations of their detractors, and by shrewd and deceptive 
marketing techniques, they have succeeded in changing the attitudes and 
habits of millions around the world. The result, sadly, is a legacy of 
shattered lives and broken dreams, all recorded in heartrending detail in the 
statistics of death, disease, and emotional dysfunction within the 
homosexual community. 

So how did all this happen? How could so many be so deceived? By 
almost any measure, the twentieth century was one of the bloodiest in all of 
human history. Not just because of the tragedy of war and rumors of war, 
but also for the sheer human toll exacted by tyrants, butchers, and despots 
of every description. In that one century we witnessed the ravages of Adolf 
Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Tojo Hideki, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Nicolae 
Ceausescu, and Saddam Hussein and the massacres in Biafra, Rwanda, 
Sudan, and many more. By some estimates, no fewer than 175 million men, 
women, and children were killed in the carnage of that century. 

The moral and spiritual fallout of those turbulent years has been 
profound. The impact of two world wars, coming practically backto-back, 
was felt most strongly in Europe, where millions have apparently given up 
on God. In some places in that part of the world, belief in traditional values 
seems to have disappeared altogether. But America has been affected too, 
and we must never forget that this was also the century of Margaret Sanger, 
the outspoken leader of the eugenics movement who founded Planned 
Parenthood, and of Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who 
manipulated the Constitution and the Court in order to create, with no 
moral or legal justification, "a woman's right to choose" to abort her unborn 
child. By some estimates, as many as forty-five million innocent children 
have died in that holocaust so far, and the toll continues to mount. 


The twentieth century was also the era of Alfred Kinsey, the professor of 
zoology at Indiana University who is celebrated today by pomographers. 


pederasts, and perverts everywhere as the father of the "Sexual Revolution" 
Who knows how many more lives will ultimately be lost to AIDS, sexually 
transmitted diseases (STDs), cancer, suicide, and all the other horrors of 
disease, disability, and death that Kinsey's fraudulent research on human 
sexuality has unleashed upon mankind? 

Of all the deceivers who ever violated the social order and corrupted the 
human spirit, none has done greater damage than Alfred Kinsey. From start 
to finish, Kinsey's life work was a fabric of lies: the product of an embittered 
and perverted mind, invented to satisfy his own sordid lusts. His research 
methods and published findings violated the most basic standards of his 
own profession. Far from being objective, Kinsey knew before he ever began 
his studies what he wanted the data to say, and he skewed his findings to 
get the exact results he had in mind. 

Kinsey and the graduate students who assisted him did not use 
conventional sampling techniques, but selected informants for their study 
who were (in dramatically large numbers) either incarcerated sex offenders, 
pedophiles, homosexuals, or prostitutes. Kinsey's young assistant, Clyde 
Martin, admitted that he had no training in statistics and was utterly 
unqualified for the tasks he was given. But when challenged to add a 
qualified statistician to his team by the Ford Foundation, who was funding 
the projects, Kinsey adamantly refused. Furthermore, he refused to allow 
competent researchers to examine his data, his interview techniques, his 
methodology, or his calculations. And the reason is perfectly clear: Kinsey 
had an agenda, and transparency was the last thing he wanted. 

The son of a Methodist minister, Kinsey rejected his father's religion as a 
child and was a lifelong atheist, a homosexual, a sexual exhibitionist, and a 
pedophile. During his undergraduate studies at Bowdoin College, and later 
at Harvard, he volunteered as a Scout leader in order to gain access to young 
boys. Accounts of his conquests, his voyeurism, his perverse exhibitionism, 
and his fascination with pornography and masturbation-all now part of the 
public record-are too sordid to describe here. But these things certainly cast 
a somber light on Kinsey's work as a "scientist" and help to explain why his 
two most infamous books aroused such shock and dismay in the 1940s and 

I was in the eighth grade when Kinsey's first book appeared, but I 
remember very well the public reaction when his findings came out. It was 
shocking. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) was followed by Sexual 
Behavior in the Human Female (1952), and everyone I knew was scandalized 
by it. No one really understood what this man was saying, but shocking 
rumors were whispered in comers, and we knew these books were going to 
shake things up. 

Among his many disturbing pronouncements, Kinsey concluded that 10 
percent of the U.S. population was homosexual, all or part of the time. 
When my mother read about that in the Washington Post, she sat me down 


one afternoon and said, "Louis, you let me know if any man ever approaches 
you in an inappropriate way." It was perfectly clear that America was not 
ready to accept homosexuality at that time, but Kinsey had opened 
Pandora's box, and all the evils of mankind were being loosed upon the 
world. By the mid-fifties it was clear that something terrible was happening 
to American society. 

To this day, the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University continues to 
burnish the reputation of its founder and to propagate specious studies of 
human sexuality. The Institute still refuses to reveal their sources of data or 
their research methods. The first rule of scientific inquiry is that no study 
can be deemed authoritative unless it can be replicated and validated by 
other scientists working in a reasonably similar environment. But Alfred 
Kinsey was so averse to public scrutiny that he once said he would destroy 
all his files and go to jail before he would let outsiders see any of them. 
And the Kinsey Institute still operates in much the same manner. 

Kinsey's assertion that 10 percent of the population is homosexual was 
undoubtedly his most controversial and most unsubstantiated claim. Many 
studies over the last forty years have found no grounds for it. The best 
estimates of the actual occurrence of homosexuality, in both the male and 
female population, have never been higher than 2 percent. Yet Kinsey's 
false claim has become the loudest boast of the gay rights movement and a 
pillar of the sex-education movement in America's public schools. 

Gershon Legman, who was the researcher that compiled Kinsey's 
pornography collection, revealed in his 1964 book about erotic literature 
that Kinsey's whole purpose in creating the "10 percent myth" was to 
"respectabilize" homosexuality, fornication, and other stigmatized practices. 

In order to bolster his own misleading reports and to undercut anyone who 
might object, Kinsey even claimed that the Holy See, at the Vatican, 
maintains the largest archive of pornography and erotic literature in the 
world. Investigators quickly discounted those claims, but Kinsey refused to 
recant, and he continued to promote that baseless charge for years. 

At the height of public reaction to Kinsey's spurious findings. Dr. Abraham 
Maslow, a highly regarded psychologist and researcher at Brandeis 
University, best known for his work on "self actualization," demonstrated 
conclusively that the large number of sex offenders, prostitutes, and other 
volunteers that Kinsey had used in his study would skew the results and lead 
to seriously flawed conclusions. But Kinsey not only ignored Maslow's 
assertions, he also abruptly ended their long friendship. 

In their landmark study of Kinsey and his claims. Dr. Judith Reisman and 
Edward W. Eichel concluded, "Kinsey's human sexuality research may be the 
most egregious example of scientific deception in this century.' In their 
examination of eight separate studies conducted by reliable social scientists, 
these authors determined that the actual incidence of homosexuality in this 


country is no more than 1 to 2 percent. 


Despite the work of Reisman, Eichel, and others who have uncovered the 
hidden secrets of Dr. Kinsey's world, the damage to the culture has already 
been done. Over the last twenty years there have been scores of 
groundbreaking books, journal articles, magazine features, and newspaper 
accounts outlining the flaws in Kinsey's work, including the horror of his 
sexual experiments with children and even infants. But, sadly, Kinsey's 
message came at a time when the American culture was in transition, and 
there were some who wanted nothing more than a Sexual Revolution, with 
unrestricted sexual license and a repudiation of Christian morality. 

For Hollywood, the music industry, and the mass media, the Sexual 
Revolution was a bonanza. And for many in that world, homosexuality is not 
just a matter of "rights" but a cause celebre. Instead of unbiased treatment 
of the genuine risks and dangers associated with sexual promiscuity and the 
"gay lifestyle;" many in the liberal media aggressively defend sexual license 
and excoriate those who would dare to point out the lies and hypocrisy that 
prop up their agenda. The film Kinsey, which starred actor Liam Neeson, was 
merely Hollywood's most recent attempt to resurrect the reputation of this 
pathetic figure. 

Such people still use Kinsey's research to defend homosexuality, and they 
use the gay agenda, in turn, as a ramrod to transform the culture. Following 
in the wake of the homosexual movement are all the other movements that 
have been built on that foundation of lies. And that's really what it boils 
down to: men and women with a deep hatred for our Judeo-Christian roots 
believe that if they can simply break down our moral resolve on this issue, 
then everything else will follow. To see how this plays out in contemporary 
society, just consider what has happened to the news media over the last 
twenty years. 

There may be no better example of the media's bias against moral 
absolutes than the case of Pinch Sulzberger, who was an outspoken advocate 
for homosexuals in the newsroom from the day he first joined the staff of 
his father's newspaper, the New York Times, in 1984. Despite profound 
misgivings about his young heir, Arthur Sulzberger Sr. nevertheless gave his 
son, Arthur Jr. (nicknamed "Pinch"), control of the media giant in 1997. And 
what has happened since then? In a candid admission in July 2004, the 
paper's ombudsman had to confess that the Times' coverage of 
homosexuality is more like "cheerleading" than objective reporting. What the 
ombudsman didn't say was that homosexuals now make up fully 75 percent 
of the editorial board that decides what stories to report and how they're 
reported by the Times. 


In the powerful new book Libel by the New York Times, attorney J. 
Edward Pawlick says the Times "is personally managed by its latest 
chairman, who is using his power to further his personal agenda of imposing 
gay marriage' nationwide..." Hardly a worthy goal for a periodical 
renowned as the nation's "paper of record" But Ed Pawlick knows what he's 
talking about. In the aftermath of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's 2003 
decision allowing gay marriage in that state, Ed Pawlick and his wife, Sally, 
led a citizen group that collected 130,000 signatures for an amendment to 
overturn the court's outrageous ruling. Predictably, the New York Times and 
its satellite publication, the Boston Globe, weighed in on the other side of 
the issue and pressured lawmakers to skip the vote, thereby silencing the 
voice of the people. Which they effectively did. 

Even though a vote was required by Massachusetts law, the citizens' 
initiative was killed there, and the liberal media applauded loudly. Pinch 
Sulzberger and company weren't concerned about objective journalism or 
constitutional principles -they were too busy shaping the way America thinks. 
The goal was to defeat moral limits on sexual libertinism in general and 
homosexuality in particular. But Ed Pawlick's response was precise: "Gay 
marriage didn't just happen in Massachusetts;" he writes in his book. "It was 
engineered by the Times." And that is the paper's focus today: vigorously 
promoting the gay agenda and then gloating when they receive awards from 
organizations like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), 
as they did recently, praising the Times for its "outstanding coverage overall" 


While the Times maybe the highest profile purveyor of pro-homosexual 
propaganda, they are by no means the only ones. The National Lesbian and 
Gay Journalists Association national conference, as reported in September 
2000, was funded by media conglomerates such as the Hearst newspaper 
chain, Knight-Ridder, CBS News, the Gannett Foundation, CNN, NBC News, 
Bloomberg News, Fox News Network, the Los Angeles Times, New York 
Daily News, the Dallas Morning News, and the San Francisco Chronicle, 
among others. 

Attending the conference were such influential reporters and media 
figures as Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news 
director for WNBC in New York; CBS News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman; 
and Ramon Escobar, an MSNBC producer. During one panel discussion, 
these "objective journalists" argued against presenting alternative viewpoints 
about the issue of homosexuality. Jeffrey Kofman said, "Why do we 
constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender 
issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, 
we don't do that with Jews, blacks, et cetera?" And Paula Madison 
concurred: "I agree with him. I don't see why we would seek out ... the 
absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view." So much for 


fair and balanced coverage. 

Members of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association hold 
high level positions at newspapers and broadcast organizations from coast to 
coast, and they aggressively censor the news each day to make sure that one, 
and only one, point of view is given credible coverage. According to the 
association's Web site, major participants in previous national conferences 
have included media superstars such as Leslie Stahl, Katie Couric, Dan 
Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, George Stephanopoulos, and, no 
surprise, Linda Ellerbee. These are the people who determine what you will 
see and read about in the mainstream news. Is it any wonder that millions of 
Americans are tuning out and turning off the networks, looking instead to 
talk radio, the Fox News Channel, or the Internet, where objective reporting 
still exists? 

How things have changed. In the fifties and sixties we had TV shows like 
Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best, all of which 
offered positive portrayals of family life and real moral values. But little by 
little, Hollywood ditched the ethical approach and turned its attentions in a 
very different direction. The first network program to feature a homosexual 
character in an ongoing role was the soap opera One Life to Live in 1992. By 
1999, there were twentyfive sitcoms or daytime dramas with homosexual 
characters. Without exception, these characters were portrayed as witty, 
clever, lovable, and just a little quirky. 

It's perfectly clear what the Hollywood writers and producers were doing- 
grinding away at public morality, using comedy as a vehicle to overcome the 
natural resistance of adults, and playing on the curiosity and credulity of 
children. By sheer persistence, the gay-friendly media have been forcing 
Americans to accept homosexuality as a normal and natural choice, whether 
they believe it or not. 

The media conspiracy to subvert the morals of children became painfully 
apparent in January 2005 when several major children's television shows 
joined with the We Are Family Foundation to promote the homosexual 
agenda under the guise of teaching children "tolerance and diversity." 
Among the TV characters taking part were such kiddie favorites as Arthur, 
Barney, Bob the Builder, Dora the Explorer, and Jimmy Neutron. The 
characters all sang together, "We Are Family;" and kids were directed to the 
Web site of the pro-homosexual We Are Family Foundation, which teaches 
them to accept and celebrate differences of race, class, gender, and "sexual 

The cartoon feature aired on the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, and PBS 
on March 11, 2005, and was supposed to be shown to kids in sixty-one 
thousand schools all across the country. Each child was to be given a 
workbook designed by the very liberal, very pro-homosexual Anti- 
Defamation League (ADL). Can somebody say "brainwashing" here? There's 
no question what was really going on. And to top it off, children were being 


urged to visit a Web site where they could sign the "Tolerance Pledge;" 
which promises to respect all people whose "abilities, beliefs, culture, race, 
sexual identity, or other characteristics are different from my own" 


There's no limit to how low some of these organizations will go, using 
technology, comedy, and entertainment, to wrest control of children's minds 
and emotions away from parents. The children's network Nickelodeon was 
promoting homosexuality as a normal lifestyle choice in 2002, when liberal 
commentator Linda Ellerbee hosted a program called My Family Is Different. 
To promote the acceptability of same-sex "families;" Ellerbee featured a 
homosexual school principal, a homosexual New York fire fighter, the 
lesbian entertainer Rosie O'Donnell, and several children who were being 
raised in homosexual homes. Of the thirteen individuals featured on the 
program, only three teenagers spoke against homosexuality. The rest were all 
for it. 

Of course, the program was produced with input from the Gay, Lesbian, 
Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against 
Defamation (GLAAD), Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and other 
pro-homosexual groups. It was a set piece from start to finish: a pro- 
homosexual snow job worthy of Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief, Leni 
Riefenstahl. Unfortunately, Nickelodeon isn't the only player promoting the 
homosexual agenda. Networks such as PBS, "E" the Entertainment Network, 
the Disney Channel, Home and Garden TV, the Food Network, A&E, and the 
Discovery Channel-not to mention the hard-rock channels MTV and VHl-all 
feature homosexuals in positive roles. Among the young crowd today, it's 
cool to be gay, and Hollywood is leading the way. 

For several years Hollywood has been under the thumb of a group of 
writers, producers, and directors known as the "Lavender Mafia," which is an 
informal network of homosexuals and gay-friendly movers and shakers. 
These are the people who produce many of the programs our children see on 
TV and in the movies. Among them are people like Kevin Williamson, the 
producer of TV's Dawson's Creek and the Scream film series; Jenny Bicks, a 
gay activist who has written for Sex and the City on HBO and Leap of Faith 
on NBC; Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, who worked on Gypsy with Bette 
Midler, and then collaborated with Glenn Close and Barbra Streisand on the 
pro-homosexual film. Serving in Silence: The Margarethe Cammermeyer 
Story. They also helped create the program What Makes a Family?, a pro- 
homosexual film for the Lifetime cable channel. 

David Geffen, a partner at DreamWorks, the production company founded 
by Stephen Spielberg, was producer of the film American Beauty, which 
presented a dismal image of heterosexual marriage and a very positive 
portrayal of homosexuality. This film was written by homosexual 


screenwriter Alan Ball and produced by Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, both 
homosexuals. But perhaps the most flagrant and dangerous indoctrination 
has come not from the world of the "R-rated" and adult films but from the 
place you would have least expected-the "Wonderful World of Disney." 


Walt Disney once said that, "'To captivate our varied and worldwide 
audience of all ages, the nature and treatment of the fairy tale, the legend, 
the myth, has to be elementally simple. Good and evil, the antagonists of all 
great drama in some guise," he said, "must be believably personalized." 
Little did he know that one day those words would take shape, not just in 
his studio's pictures and cartoons, but in the boardroom of the organization 
he created. 

It's no longer a secret that Disney's once fabled empire of childfriendly 
films, cartoons, theme parks, merchandising, and related ventures is now in 
the grasp of the homosexual agenda, but it is nevertheless one of the saddest 
and most disappointing aspects of this story. Disney chairman Michael 
Eisner and Joe Roth, chairman of Walt Disney Motion Pictures, have both 
served on the board of a group called Hollywood Supports, which is a 
homosexual lobbying organization founded by Barry Diller of the Home 
Shopping Network and Sid Sheinberg of MCA/Universal to advocate for 
homosexual benefits in the film industry and to influence public opinion, in 
all areas, regarding homosexuality. 

Elizabeth Birch, a lesbian activist and former executive director of the 
Human Rights Campaign, reported to participants at the Aspen Human 
Rights Summit in Colorado on a brief conversation she'd had with Michael 
Eisner. When she encountered Eisner at a meeting, she said, she told him, 
"Michael, 30 percent of your employees are gay." To which Eisner said, 
"You're wrong, Elizabeth. It's 40 percent!" Obviously, he was well aware of 
what was going on, and some recent estimates have suggested the actual 
total may be even higher. 

A decade ago, a feature story in Buzz magazine entitled "Disney Comes 
Out of the Closet" chronicled the conversion of Disney under Eisner's 
leadership into a fortress of gay culture and the foremost promoter of 
homosexuality to America's children. Tom Schumacher, who was president 
of Walt Disney Feature Animation and the man who oversaw production of 
the animated film The Lion King, is an outspoken homosexual. Another gay 
executive at Disney, Lauren Lloyd, produced the film Boys Town, which was 
a 2002 Disney feature dealing with the murder of a homosexual in West 

So why would a child-friendly organization like Disney go to such lengths 
to support the gay agenda? As the old saying goes, follow the money. As one 


analyst puts it, "Homosexuals are a wealthy and identityconscious consumer 
group, and Disney knows it" The large number of films, cartoons, books, 
television features, and theme-park spectaculars with gay characters and 
themes has given this cash-hungry company a massive following in the gay 
community. Some studies show that homosexuals are more than three times 
as likely as the general population to see two or more movies a month, and 
their influence at Disney Studios is immense. 

This plays to Disney's financial interests, of course. And the open, 
welcoming environment at Disney World and other theme parks that feature 
"Gay and Lesbian Day" each year only helps to increase loyalty among the 
homosexual crowd. Never mind that it also alienates millions of Christian 
families and contributes to the deterioration of moral standards for 
everyone. The moguls at Disney believe they can overcome the resistance of 
parents and moral opponents in the community by powerful advertising 
aimed at children, and, by all accounts, the gamble is working just fine. 

But the toxic waste spewing from Disney doesn't stop there. Another 
Disney subsidiary, Hyperion Press, promotes homosexuality in America's 
bookstores with publications aimed at "the homosexual children of 
heterosexual parents" One such example was Hyperion's 1995 publication 
Growing Up Gay, written by comedians Jaffe Cohen, Danny McWilliams, and 
Bob Smith and designed to help kids adjust to homosexuality. Hyperion has 
also published an autobiography of the transvestite entertainer RuPaul and a 
series of "self-help" guides for parents and their troubled teens. 

Ina book entitled Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, author Sean Griffin 
chronicles the transformation of the Disney organization by describing how 
the company's vision changed after the death of its founder, Walt Disney. 
Griffin begins with the early days and how the homosexual connection 
began; then he examines the degree to which "gay culture" now pervades 
everything Disney does. Although the author speaks of these changes in 
generally favorable terms, he nevertheless reveals how homosexuals have co- 
opted Disney's cartoon characters, films, parks, and other products for their 
own purposes, and how they've manipulated the images of Mickey Mouse 
and the Magic Kingdom to insinuate homosexuality into every American 


Some might argue that the transformation of Hollywood and the news media 
that I've just described is a good thing. Those who favor the idea of "Live 
and let live!" may even believe that it's only fair to include and encourage 
gays and lesbians, to give them a role in organizations like Disney and others 
where they can make a positive contribution. Though well meaning, that 
view misses the point entirely. The homosexual agenda has nothing to do 
with making a positive contribution. Furthermore, gay rights activists will 


never settle for a "live and let live" role. Their goal is to enforce acceptance 
and legitimization of their lifestyle and to overpower and overwhelm by 
sheer force anyone who dares to stand in their way. 

Does anyone doubt that? Then take a look at what homosexuals have said 
about their own game plan. Homosexual activists have a strategic marketing 
plan to promote homosexuality and to vilify their enemies. That plan was 
published in Guide magazine in November 1987, and it makes for some 
pretty eye-opening reading. In "The Overhauling of Straight America," 
homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill describe several strategies 
that homosexuals can use to push their way onto center stage. For example: 

■ Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. 

■ Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. 

■ Give protectors a just cause. 

■ Make gays look good. 

■ Make the victimizers look bad. 

To make those who object to the homosexual lifestyle look bad, they say, 
homosexuals are to use words, images, and slurs that compare opponents to 
the Nazis, Klan members, and ignorant "homophobes" The object is not to 
convince or persuade, but to destroy their opponents by linking them to 
racists and "right-wing crazies" A publication we produced at the Traditional 
Values Coalition, called "Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based on 
Hitler's 'Big Lie’ Technique," goes into detail about this type of campaign 
and how "hate speech" is used against Christians and others who oppose the 
normalization of sodomy. 

This is what it's really all about-deception, misdirection, coercion, and 
brute force when necessary, and, above all, perpetuating the "Big Lie" that 
homosexuality is a natural "lifestyle alternative" and that those who oppose 
it are to be branded as intolerable bigots. As Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill 

Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any 
campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in 
need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex 
action to assume the role of protector.... Straight viewers must be 
able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be 
given no extra excuses to say 'they are not like us'... Our 
campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual 
practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. 

You can be certain this is not merely a passive campaign of resistance. It 


is above all an aggressive campaign to demonize opponents of the gay 
agenda. Case in point: Kirk and Pill write: 

Make the victimizes look bad.... The public should be shown 
images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs 
disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux 
Klan demonstrating that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted 
southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that 
looks both comical and deranged; menacing pugs, thugs, and 
convicts speaking coolly about the fags' they have killed or 
would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where 
homosexuals were tortured and gassed. 

There is nothing benign here, no reasonable disagreement, no respect for 
the opinions or moral reservations of those who have expressed concern for 
the dismantling of our culture. Rather, what's being presented here is a plan 
for combat and the conquest of a nation. 

In a report entitled "Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A 
Question of ' Orientation' and Consequences;' the founder of Colorado for 
Family Values, Anton V. Marco, makes the logical connection between the 
words of the pamphleteers and their even more sinister precursors who 
masterminded the tyrannies of the last century. The words, tactics, and 
attitudes expressed in the manifesto written by Kirk and Pill, says Marco, 
bear a striking resemblance to those of a directive of the Communist Party 
USA that was quoted in the 1956 "Report of the House of Representatives 
Committee on Un-American Activities;" which said in part: 

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, 
discredit and degrade our critics.... When obstructionists become 
too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic.... 
Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that 
already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough 
repetition, become "fact" in the public mind (Volume I, p. 347). 

The message of both documents is the same. Furthermore, the tactics are 
the same. And gay rights activists have learned this lesson well, as illustrated 
by an incident in Colorado cited by Marco. In the early 1990s, Christians and 
other concerned citizens were urged to stay away from a city's "Gay Day 
Parade:" They were urged to "Boycott Gay Day." At the same time, however, 
promoters of the homosexual event had taken a very aggressive position in 
the media, warning about the possibility of violence from "right wingers" 
Most of the local population, in fact, stayed away from the event, and the 
demonstrators ended up marching down virtually empty streets, with no 
evidence of protest or resistance of any kind. 

But did this silence the homosexual activists' claims that they were 
victims of violence? Of course not. Despite the total absence of socalled 


"gay bashing" or dissent at the parade or anywhere else that day, spokesmen 
for the event told the sympathetic news media that they were victims of 
Colorado's hate mongers, KKKers, neo-Nazis, and other right-wing bigots. 
They weren't interested in telling the truth or protecting themselves. Their 
object was to portray themselves as victims, as Kirk and Pill had prescribed, 
and to demonize their opponents. 


The reality of what the homosexual bullying tactics were meant to 
accomplish was revealed in an article published in the gay tabloid the 
Washington Blade a short time later. In an article by Eric Pollard, who was 
the founder of the confrontational homosexual group, ACT UP / DC, we find 
the following confession: 

I have helped to create a truly fascist organization.... The decision 
to create ACT UP / DC was conceived when I and another early 
member attended an OUT! rally. I had taken copious amounts of 
LSD. We were impressed with the energy and with the self- 
righteous anger of the crowd. We conspired to bring into existence 
an activist group that ... could effectively exploit the media for its 
own ends, and that would work covertly and break the law with 
impunity.... Under the influence of powerful, illicit drugs, it really 
seemed like a good idea . 

Furthermore, Pollard revealed that the group had adopted "subversive 
modes, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf (the book by Adolf 
Hitler that describes how he seized power in Germany in the 1930s), which 
some of us studied as a working model. As ACT UP / DC grew, we struck 
intently and surgically into whatever institution we believed to stand in our 
way... " 

Then at one point in the article, Pollard admits, "I have left ACT UP, more 
correctly, they have thrown me out for insisting on the viability of individual 
dissent" These are strange admissions, as Tony Marco points out, for the 
homosexual movement that has made a living by accusing moral opponents 
of using Nazi tactics. But, again, this is all part of what Hitler had called "the 
big lie" If you tell a big lie, tell it often, and repeat it boldly enough, people 
will begin to believe it-and the bigger the lie the better. 

What matters to the propagandist is that his tactics will allow him to 
overwhelm and defeat the opponent. Truth is not only not the issue in such 
a campaign of deception, but truth is also the enemy. "Propaganda must not 
serve the truth;" Hitler wrote, "especially not insofar as it might bring out 
something favorable for the opponent." And this is obviously why Eric 
Pollard and his ACT UP companions found Hitler's advice so applicable to 
their own efforts. The idea is to change the debate, to humiliate and 


discredit the adversary, and to create an entirely new reality based on lies. 
Once again. Hitler's words say it very well: "Through clever and constant 
application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and 
also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as 
paradise " 

I will be the first to say that these descriptions of the homosexual agenda 
and the renewed importance of principled resistance to it are not always an 
easy message to deliver, but it is a message I can by no means fail to deliver 
at this critical hour in our nation's history. When all's said and done, I don't 
want to be guilty of the sin of omission, and I'm convinced that God will 
hold us all accountable if we don't have the courage to stand up and 
challenge the "big lie" and to vocally and physically resist the wickedness 
that is invading our culture. 


The tactics of deception that I've described in these pages are part of a 
gradual softening process designed to wear down the natural resistance of 
regular Americans. But beyond that, it is part of a sophisticated social and 
political campaign that threatens immeasurable damage to our nation if we 
fail to stand our ground. 

What's really at stake in allowing homosexuality to become a "viable 
lifestyle alternative;' as they phrase it, is that the homosexual agenda is a 
denial of God's creative order. It is a rejection of the obvious truth of 
Genesis 1 and 2. When you remove the pristine doctrine of Creation and the 
incredible work that was done there by the Creator God, then the rest of 
Scripture can be taken tongue in cheek. If Genesis 1:26 is not a fact-that God 
made us both male and female, created in the likeness of His own image- 
then nothing is true, and we're all in trouble. To deny the Creation account 
and its meaning for maintaining an orderly and moral society is like denying 
God's plan of redemption merely to satisfy some notion of political 
correctness being pushed by the homosexual community, and that would be 

For much of the last century, homosexual activists and their friends have 
been pushing the idea that homosexuality is a normal, and even desirable, 
lifestyle choice. Their papers and magazines say they were "bom that way;" 
but there's no reliable science to support that claim. In fact, most 
homosexuals don't believe that their orientation is genetic and inborn. In 
that regard, it's only fair to point to a survey administered by Alfred Kinsey 
in 1970 based on a questionnaire administered to a group of 979 
homosexuals about this question. Even Kinsey came closer to the tmth than 
today's propagandists. What he found in that study was that less than 10 
percent of respondents believed they were "bom that way." And more than 
80 percent attributed their orientation to childhood trauma or other 


environmental influences. Here's what they said: 

Reasons Given for Orientation 


Early homosexual experience with adults or peers 


Around homosexuals a lot, have a lot of homosexual friends 


Poor relationship with mother 


Poor relationship with father 


Unusual development (labeled sissy, tomboy, etc.) 


Heterosexual partners unavailable 


Social ineptitude 


1 was born that way 


What the medical community is discovering about homosexuality and the 
incidence of disease and premature death among gay men and lesbians 
offers a somber contrast to the images put forth by the homosexual lobby. 
But no amount of hype and disinformation can change the fact that, while 
there are genuine psychological and emotional factors involved, 
homosexuality is a learned behavior and ultimately a choice-not an inborn 
biological condition. And homosexuals themselves know this. It's just 
another example of their campaign of deception. 




Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and 
early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically 
misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an "agenda" above 
saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent. 
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior 
choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence 
regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with 
the homosexual lifestyle. 


WHAT'S LOVE GOT to do with it?" When Tina Turner recorded that hit song 
back in 1984, she was only putting into words what many young Americans 
had apparently already concluded. Based on the loose morals and broken 
lives of a "no-fault divorce, anything goes" culture, love was just a 
secondhand emotion. In her song. Turner said that if there could be a broken 
heart, then one should just skip all the formalities and take pleasure 
wherever you find it-self-indulgent hedonism and low-risk "hook-ups" were 
the answer. Those were the ethics of a bmised and battered generation. 
Earlier, as America entered the strung-out seventies, songwriter Stephen 
Stills put it even more bluntly in his song "Love the One You're With;" which 
told listeners to love whomever they were with if they couldn't be with the 
one they loved. 

What a sad epitaph for modern civilization. In God's perfect order, sexual 
intimacy has always been reserved for marriage. The union of man and wife 
produces life. It's an expression of divine unity. The two become "one flesh," 
and the consummation of human love as it was meant to be includes the 
promise of a lifetime commitment of love, fidelity, and accountability. But 
whenever God's natural order is scorned, and wherever mere hedonism and 
sexual license are allowed to prevail, chaos inevitably ensues. It's a law of 
nature as certain as thunder and lightning: promiscuity and infidelity lead to 
brokenness, unhappiness, suffering, and death. 

When you look at the statistics of the "free love" movement from the 
sixties right up to our time, what you will discover is a heartbreaking 
chronicle of damaged lives, deadly diseases, and a level of cultural confusion 
and emotional despair that is unprecedented in history. And no component 


of this breakdown of the moral order is more conspicuous or more 
dangerous to our future than unrestrained dissipation and the aberrant 
sexual recklessness of the homosexual movement. 


Here are some of the troubling medical facts. In 1993 and 1994, Dr. Paul 
Cameron conducted an important study of the mortality rates of 
homosexuals. He recorded the age of death for homosexuals as reported in 
death notices of eighteen homosexual journals over an eleven-year period, 
and what he found was that the median age of death was the late thirties for 
those with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). For those who had 
not developed AIDS, the median age of death was only slightly longer, in 
their early forties. Statistics for lesbians indicated an average life span of less 
than fifty years. At the end of the study, Cameron concluded: 

Our results suggest that AIDS has reduced the homosexual life- 
span by about 3 to 5 years, making homosexuality appreciably 
more dangerous today than in the past [if we assume an average 
age of death of 42 before AIDS, then AIDS is associated with a 7% 
to 12% reduction in life-span]. 

Evidently long life is not much of a factor in the homosexual "lifestyle" 
But what makes these results all the more disturbing is the fact that 
longevity has been on the rise in the general population in this country for 
most of the last century. Life expectancy for males has increased from about 
forty years in the mid-nineteenth century to more than seventy-five years 
today. For females, life expectancy is now at least seventy-nine years for 
those with normal health and lifestyles, and even longer if the individual has 
already reached middle age. 

By any measure, homosexuals and lesbians have a substantially shorter 
life expectancy than heterosexuals. Another study released in 2004 suggests 
that young men who engage in homosexual relations before age twenty are 
unlikely to reach retirement age. The incidence of not just AIDS and HIV, 
but also of more than thirty highly infectious sexually transmitted diseases 
in this group, has reduced life expectancy by as much as thirty years. And 
"quality of life" for practicing homosexuals is practically nonexistent 
whenever symptoms of illness and disease are detected. 

A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the 
mortality rates of homosexuals in Canada, as just one example, concluded 
that life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less 
than for other men. If current patterns continue, the researchers said: "We 
estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty 
years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal 
assumptions;" scientists added, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre 


are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all 
men in Canada in the year 1871." 

What all this tells us is that just 2 percent of homosexual men will ever 
reach old age, defined as age sixty-five or older. Even when AIDS is not 
present, fewer than 12 percent of homosexual men will ever reach old age. 
Even Alfred Kinsey's research in the 1930s and '40s, although he strongly 
supported homosexual and lesbian relationships personally, indicated that 
fewer than 1 percent of homosexuals could expect to live to age sixty-five or 

Paul Cameron's studies of life expectancy among homosexuals reveal that 
the average life span for lesbians is only slightly higher than that of 
homosexual men. Life expectancy for lesbians is approximately age fifty if 
neither HIV nor AIDS is present, and age forty-five if either disease is 
present. But it should also be noted that longevity figures like these are not 
the only things that ought to trouble the promoters of the homosexual 

Homosexual relationships are also highly unstable and emotionally 
charged. Physical abuse is at least twice as high among gays as it is among 
heterosexual couples. But such facts are ignored by the media and the 
homosexual culture. I have often said that homosexuals are not merely men 
and women who prefer the same sex, but people who are "pansexual" In 
other words, they are people who seek sexual gratification in any place and 
by any means available to satisfy their erotic desires. They are hedonists in 
the truest sense of the word, and longstanding monogamous relationships 
are the last thing most homosexuals want. This is just one more reason why 
the whole idea of "gay marriage" is such a fraud. 

A 1978 study revealed that 28 percent of homosexual men have had a 
thousand or more sexual partners. Fully 79 percent of individuals surveyed 
said that more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Just under 50 
percent of white homosexual males said they had as many as five hundred 
sex partners. A separate study of AIDS victims by the U.S. Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that about eleven hundred 
sexual partners was the average for most homosexuals, while some men 
estimated that they'd had as many as twenty thousand partners in their 
lifetimes. Such figures are simply staggering, but that's not the worst of it. 

Since the AIDS contagion was first diagnosed in 1985, the rate of 
infection has skyrocketed to more than sixteen thousand new cases every 
day of the year. If you wonder how this is possible, you only need to 
consider what's happening in today's homosexual culture. Patient zero of the 
worldwide AIDS epidemic, according to the findings of epidemiologists, was 
a Canadian flight attendant named Gaetan Dugas who traveled almost 
exclusively internationally. As an active and promiscuous homosexual, 
Dugas passed the AIDS virus to anonymous partners around the globe. It 


would not be stretching the truth by much to say that every man or woman 
who had engaged in homosexual relations over the past thirty years is, by 
implication at least, connected in a morbidly frightening way to Gaetan 

What all this should tell us is that there's nothing "gay" about the 
homosexual lifestyle. To try to persuade the American people that this 
"deathstyle" is somehow worthy of protection and promotion is a fraud of 
tragic proportions, and frankly, it is the most diabolical campaign of 
deception I can imagine. 


The history of the homosexual movement is a long and inglorious affair. As I 
indicated in the first chapter, there have been homosexual cliques in this 
country since the eighteenth century, motivated in part by the spirit of 
"Enlightenment" that erupted in Europe during the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries. Many activists in the modem gay rights movement, 
however, prefer to trace the beginnings of their movement to June 27, 1969, 
when a riot broke out in a gay bar in Greenwich Village called the Stonewall 
Inn. The Stonewall Riots ignited a firestorm in lower Manhattan for nearly a 
week, but the implications of what happened there continues to this day. 

There were other hangouts for homosexuals on Christopher Street in 
lower Manhattan, but on that summer day the New York Police Department 
had received a complaint saying that a group of gay men was openly 
engaging in sodomy and oral copulation in and around the Stonewall Inn. 
When officers arrived at the bar, they confirmed what they'd been told and 
immediately started making arrests. Three or four men were handcuffed and 
hauled off to jail, but suddenly, egged on by a group of dmnk and disorderly 
patrons, bystanders started tossing drinks, glasses, and eventually chairs at 
the policemen. Backup calls were made to other precincts for 
reinforcements, and before long a full-scale riot was under way. 

Rumors spread quickly, and by the next day news of the "Stonewall Riots" 
was all over the nation's newspapers. New Yorkers were scandalized by what 
was happening, but during the sixties it didn't take a lot to turn a small 
disturbance into a national media event, and over the next five days the 
police found themselves in pitched battle against not just homosexuals and 
other free-thinkers in Greenwich Village, but against protestors from all over 
the East Coast, marching for "homosexual liberation" There's more to this 
story, of course, and much that preceded and followed these events, but 
many homosexuals today refer to that week as the birthday of their 
movement and the beginning of the so-called gay rights campaign. 

For many on the political left. Stonewall was a great victory. It was a 
cause to fight for and even to die for. And that attitude has now seeped into 


the mainstream culture. In December 1999, during the presidential 
campaign. Vice President A1 Gore promised that if elected he would 
"eliminate this unacceptable form of discrimination" against homosexuals. 
Like many in his party. Gore found it was politically expedient to refer to 
homosexuality as the last frontier of discrimination in America. 
Unfortunately, that view is in dramatic conflict with both science and 
psychology, and in response the Traditional Values Coalition launched a 
massive grassroots campaign in Mr. Gore's home state of Tennessee in the 
fall of 1999, showing the voters what the candidate had said, as well as the 
facts about the homosexual lifestyle in our video Gay Rights, Special Rights. 
The voters got the message, and, as history now records, Mr. Gore lost that 
historic vote because he failed to carry Tennessee. 

There have been many victories and defeats in this struggle over the years. 
As courts, legislatures, and other governing bodies from Massachusetts to 
California, and even the Supreme Court, have come out strongly in favor of 
homosexual marriage (and against the sanctity of the traditional two-parent 
family), the battle to preserve the sanctity of the home seems to be growing 
hotter than ever. And sometimes even our friends seem to be looking the 
other way. On October 13, 2004, in the final presidential debate of the 2004 
campaign, the question was asked: "Do you believe that homosexuality is a 
choice?" Senator John Kerry answered simply, "No, it is not a choice" And 
President Bush, who should have known better, answered, "I don't know." 

As for Senator Kerry, we witnessed the same kind of disinformation we've 
always seen from those on the Left, pretending that homosexuality is natural 
and an inborn condition. On the other side, however, we saw a refusal to 
speak the truth because of the potential controversy that might have erupted 
in the middle of a political campaign. What neither candidate would admit 
was that there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is anything but 
an emotional disorder. 

Never has any research institute, any school of medicine, any journal of 
medicine, or either of the major therapeutic organizations-the American 
Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association-or even 
the National Academy of Sciences ever said that medical researchers have 
found a "homosexual gene:" That's because no such gene exists. There is no 
conclusive science to show any correlation whatsoever. But that hasn't 
stopped the homosexual community from making false claims. 

Researchers Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay, Michael Bailey, and Richard Pillar 
have all conducted research projects that set out to prove the innate nature 
of homosexuality. But in peer reviews and laboratory trials, none of these 
studies have ever been successfully replicated. This means either that the 
research data were flawed to begin with or the parameters of the 
experiments were unsatisfactory because the results of those experiments 
could never be duplicated under controlled laboratory conditions. Unless 
research of this nature can be approved and confirmed through peer review, 
and unless those who are competent in genetic studies are able to replicate 


the findings of the initial study, then the evidence can't be tmsted. 

Perhaps the best example of this was the claim of Dr. Simon LeVay, who 
exhumed forty-one cadavers, of which about half were former homosexuals 
who had died of AIDS. After the study, LeVay reported that the 
hypothalamus (which is the part of the brain that regulates metabolic 
processes related to sexual response) was smaller in the bodies of men who 
were homosexual than in those who were heterosexual. Again, and 
predictably, the press picked up on this and reported, "Aha, it's genetic!" By 
LeVay's logic, homosexuals simply don't have the capacity to be attracted to 
the opposite sex. Therefore, many concluded, homosexuality is normal. But 
it didn't take long for LeVay's trial balloon to be punctured. 

The study was quickly ripped apart by responsible researchers who said 
that a proper analysis of the hypothalamus would have to be conducted over 
a much longer span of time. To conduct a postmortem on men at age thirty- 
five or forty was not enough. There would need to be an analysis of these 
individuals at age twelve when they entered puberty, as teenagers with the 
capacity for reproduction, in their midthirties, and so on over a much longer 
period of time. Also, analysts asked, if the hypothalamus wasn't functioning 
properly, then why did these individuals have an attraction for any sex? Why 
were they attracted to their own sex if this organ was defective? So in the 
end, LeVay's research was repudiated. 

The evidence proves that the studies conducted by LeVay, Hamer, and the 
others were flawed. That story needs to be told, because the mainstream 
media have continued to cite LeVay's data as fact. The truth is, there is no 
medical evidence that would allow homosexuals to claim a biological basis 
for this condition, and those in positions of authority-including the president 
of the United States and legislators in Washington and all fifty states-need to 
have the information and the moral courage to say so. 


There was a lot of talk about health care, prescription drug benefits, and 
government-funded health programs during the 2004 election season. But 
almost nothing was said about the potential cost to the nation if taxpayers 
are forced to pay for medical treatment for the diseases associated with 
homosexuality. This is very much an issue for social reformers on the Left, 
who are eager to force all Americans to pay for the mistakes of the few. But 
if taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for the full cost of medical care for 
everyone who has contracted AIDS, HIV, or the dozens of STDs associated 
with homosexual practices, the price tag will be crippling to our federal 

Most Americans understand that AIDS is a very expensive disease that is 
found primarily among homosexuals, drug abusers, prostitutes, wives of 


promiscuous men, recipients of tainted blood, and certain others. Over half 
of all people diagnosed with AIDS in the United States, and as high as 56 
percent of new HIV infections, are homosexual males. As I indicated 
earlier, the AIDS disease was first diagnosed as a disease of homosexual 
men. It was spread by homosexual men, and long-term study confirms that it 
is increasingly a "gay disease" 

More than half of AIDS patients in this country are homosexual males in 
their twenties and thirties. Treatment of debilitating illnesses of young or 
middle-aged patients consumes a much larger share of public resources. 
Unlike elderly patients receiving subsidized care, most of whom have already 
paid for their treatment by decades of social security deposits, younger 
beneficiaries of public medical care are drawing on the system at a time they 
ought to be making their greatest contribution. 

A report published in the Los Angeles Times in 1995 examined 
government documents dealing with the costs of medical care for AIDS and 
HIV patients and concluded that the impact of socialized care for these 
individuals would consume approximately 1 percent of the entire Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States. 

According to another report cited by the Wall Street Journal in February 
2004, as high as 3 percent of all men living in New York City already have 
HIV. In the nation's prisons, HIV is on the average of seventeen times more 
common than in the general population. For the most part, these are not 
elderly patients. They are men who, except for their own bad choices, 
should be active, contributing, and productive members of society. But now 
their health care is being paid for by the American taxpayer, and this 
enormous debt just continues to rise. 

Politicians and pundits talk about the need for compassion for those who 
are infected with STDs, genital cancers, and all the other medical maladies 
that come from homosexual promiscuity, and that's true. We ought to care 
and help where we can. But there's hardly a word of caution or concern for 
the actions that produce these illnesses. Instead, the media glorify the gay 
and lesbian lifestyle by presenting images of happy, clever, carefree 
homosexuals and defying anyone to point out what's really happening to 
these men and women. 

The media rarely associate the diseases with the behaviors that produced 
them, and that's a real problem. At least 43 percent of the homosexual men 
estimate they've had sex with five hundred or more different partners in 
their lifetime. And 28 percent admit to more than one thousand partners. 
The result of all this sexual profligacy is that homosexuals now account for 
at least 80 percent of America's most serious sexually transmitted diseases. 

Young people who engage in homosexual acts are twenty-three times 
more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than those who are 


strictly heterosexual. Male homosexuals are fourteen times more likely to 
contract syphilis than heterosexuals, and they're thousands of times more 
likely to develop AIDS. The obvious conclusion has to be that 
homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's a deathstyle, but the mainstream media 
won't say it, the political Left won't say it, and the cost of medical care for 
those afflicted with these maladies is out of control. 


Medical researchers estimate that there are as many as ninety thousand new 
AIDS cases in the United States each year. It is estimated that one in every 
two hundred fifty persons in this country is HIVpositive, with more than ten 
million cases worldwide. The cumulative cost of treating the HIV-infected 
population in America now exceeds $13 billion, and the average yearly cost 
of treating persons with AIDS is at least $38,000 per year. The cost of 
treatment throughout an AIDS patient's life is estimated at over $130,000. 

The cost of AIDS treatment to the global economy was estimated to top 
$514 billion in the year 2000, and to amount to more than 1.4 percent of 
the world's gross domestic product. The cost to the United States alone was 
estimated between $81 billion and $107 billion. 

The impact of HIV/ AIDS on the economy and the health-care industry is 
enormous. A report in the mid-nineties estimated that each AIDS patient 
costs hospitals as much as $260,000. In some hospitals, according to the 
National Public Health and Hospital Institute, AIDS patients take up more 
than 7 percent of the beds. The average hospital stay for AIDS patients is 12 
days, compared to 7.2 days for the typical hospital visit. The report further 
suggested that taxpayers should expect economic losses to increase, due to 
the fact that 90 percent of HIV-infected patients in public hospitals rely on 
Medicaid, Medicare, or charity for funds to support their treatment. At the 
same time, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 
the average cost of intensive care unit treatment and hospitalization for 
AIDS patients averaged $174,781 per year of life saved. 

AIDS and HIV infections may be the most pernicious health concerns for 
epidemiologists today, but the spread of sexually transmitted diseases 
(STDs) is no less dangerous for society. Except for monogamous 
heterosexual couples who avoid all other forms of sexual conduct, there is 
no such thing as "safe sex" 

A report in the December 15, 2004 issue of the Journal of Infectious 
Diseases revealed that homosexual men are contracting diseases that were 
once found only in women. For example, human papillomavirus (HPV), 
which has been causally linked to cervical cancer in women, was found in 
57 percent of the homosexuals who participated in the study, and it is linked 
to anal cancer in men. 


The same study reported that HPV infection rates are highest in certain 
cities. Among participants from San Francisco, 61 percent were infected; 
from Boston, 57 percent; 60 percent from New York City; and 49 percent 
from Denver. One of the principal contributing factors leading to HPV 
infection, researchers said, was the number of different sex partners the 
participant had during the previous six months. 

According to researchers Dr. Brandon Bankowski and Susan Bankowski, at 
least one in four persons will contract an STD at some point in their life. 
More than twelve million Americans, including more than three million 
teenagers, are infected with STDs each year. And as many as fifty-six million 
American adults and adolescents may already have a lifetime incurable STD. 
They write: 

Many STDs occur without symptoms, are more severe in women, 
and often go undetected until permanent damage has occurred. If 
left untreated, they can lead to long-term complications, including 
severe pain, infertility, birth defects, various cancers and other 
diseases, and even death. Young adults are at greatest risk of 
acquiring STDs, for reasons that include having many sexual 
partners, partners who are more likely to have an infection, and 
lower use of contraceptives. As well, the public and private costs 
of STDs are immense. Conservative estimates of total costs are 
around $10 billion in the United States, rising to $17 billion if HIV 
infections are included. 

AIDS, HIV, and STDs are already taking a toll on public welfare, and it's 
clear that the lives of homosexual men and lesbians are being devastated by 
illness. But the problem doesn't end there either. A report on suicide in the 
United States prepared by the National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control reveals that more people die from suicide each year than from 
homicide. In the year 2000, there were 29,350 suicides, which is 1.7 times 
higher than the homicide rate. Today suicide is the eleventh leading cause of 
death for all Americans, and the third leading cause of death for people 
between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four. 

Figures concerning catastrophic illness, suicide, and death among young 
people are easily the most troubling. And these data are not restricted only 
to those on the fringes of society. The Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) and the American College Health Association estimate that 
one in five hundred college students is infected with HIV. This estimate is 
based on the results of a blind study conducted at nineteen American 
universities. A followup study at twenty-four colleges found HIV infection to 
be about .2 percent, which is consistent with the earlier study. If this 
seems like a high percentage of college-age young adults, consider that the 
CDC estimates the rise of HIV infection for all Americans of all age groups to 
be one in two hundred fifty. On top of this, there are at least eleven 
hundred suicides on college campuses in this country each year, which 


ought to tell us that the faddish popularity of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" 
among young adults today, combined with the celebrity status of 
homosexuality, is a lethal combination. 

Males are more than four times more likely to die from suicide than 
females, but females are more likely to attempt suicide than males, and the 
rate of suicide among homosexual males is highest of all. According to one 
assessment of this crisis from the National Center for Health Statistics, there 
were at least 4,960 suicides among young people between the ages fifteen 
and twenty-four in 1993 alone. In fact, these numbers may actuallybe 
substantially higher since many suicide deaths are wrongly categorized as 

In the forty-three years between 1952 and 1995, suicides among 
adolescents and young adults nearly tripled. And from 1980 to 1997, the 
rate of suicide among persons aged fifteen to nineteen increased by 11 
percent. Among those aged ten to fourteen there was a 109 percent increase, 
while the increase for black teenagers in the fifteen to nineteen age group 
was 105 percent. In 1999, more teenagers and young adults died from 
suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, and 
chronic lung disease combined. Anecdotal evidence makes it clear that the 
main reason for this epidemic of suicide is the feeling of being overwhelmed 
by life, by the lack of connection with parents and peers, and by the 
emptiness of their sex-and-drug saturated lives. 


The worldwide AIDS epidemic is considerably worse than has been reported. 
International figures distributed by the United Nations suggest that one in 
every one hundred sexually active adults worldwide is infected with HIV. Of 
those, however, only about one in ten is aware that he or she is infected 
with the virus. If estimates of current transmission rates are reliable, there 
may be as many as forty million diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of AIDS 
and HIV worldwide. And if you track groups most affected by the outbreak, 
you begin to see where the problem comes from. 

Again, here are the facts: The source for 77 percent of all transmission of 
AIDS/HIV among whites is homosexual males. Among blacks, 49 percent of 
AIDS/HIV transmission is from homosexual males, and these high rates are 
consistent across all racial and ethnic lines. The mainstream media and our 
cultural elites are working overtime to alert us to the dangers of smoking, 
alcohol abuse, environmental pollutants, obesity, and even SUVs. All these 
things, we're told, can reduce our "life expectancy." But, far and away, 
nothing reduces life expectancy like the homosexual lifestyle. 

For untold centuries we've known that there's only one sane and healthy 
form of sexuality and only one way to avoid contracting sexually transmitted 


diseases. And that's to reserve sexual intimacy to the marriage bed and the 
husband and wife to remain monogamous and faithful to one another 
forever. But this is not the message the mainstream media and the cultural 
elites want you to hear. They are too busy promoting an agenda that will 
destroy the lives of millions. 

In 1985, the state of California passed a law that fined medical 
practitioners as much as $10,000 and threatened them with a year in jail for 
violating the confidentiality of patients diagnosed with AIDS or HIV. While 
this new law may have prevented embarrassment for the individuals 
concerned, it also meant that physicians and nurses could not alert members 
of the medical staff of the risks of contagion during surgery. And it meant 
that employers and even spouses could be denied critical, life-saving 

TABLE 2: Estimated number and percentage of persons with HIV/AIDS diagnosed, bv race/ethnicity, sex, and transmission category— 
32 states*, 2000-2003 34 







Pacific Islander 

American Indian/ 
Alaska Native 

Transmission category 












Men who have sex with other men (MSM) 

25, 842 

(76 6) 


(48 5) 






(60 9) 

Injection drug use (IDU) 


(9 7) 


(18 3) 




(12 0) 


(15 1) 

Both MSM and IDU 


(6 7) 


(5 0) 




(4 0) 


(11 0) 

High-risk heterosexual contact 5 


(6 1) 


(26 8) 




(17 31 


(12 2) 

Other 11 


(0 9) 


(1 3) 


(1 1) 




(0 8) 















(30 4) 


(16 7) 






(29 1) 

High-risk heterosexual contact 5 




(80 4) 




(83 61 


(69 3) 

Other 1 


(2 5) 


(2 8) 




(5 0| 


(1 6) 












* States with confidential, name-based reporting of HIV infection. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa. Kansas, 
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 
f Hispamcs might be of any race 

5 Sexual contact with someone of the opposite sex known to have HIV/AIDS or at least one of the following HIV risk factors MSM, IDU, or hemophilia 
1 Mother to-child exposure, receipt of blood transfusion, blood components, or blood products, receipt of organ or tissue transplant, artificial insemination, 
or unintentional occupational exposure to human blood or other body fluids 

** Totals include one person of unknown sex and also can differ from the apparent sums because of rounding of estimates that resulted from adjustments 
for reporting delay and missing risk factors. 

Like homosexuality itself, the AIDS epidemic has become a massive 
industry dedicated to denial, subterfuge, and disinformation, aimed at 
preventing normal Americans from making the perfectly logical connection 
that homosexuality is the primary cause of AIDS and HIV. Not only does this 
limit the possibilities of suitable treatment, but it is also an assault on 
prevention and early diagnosis of conditions that may lead to the diseases. 
Instead of being treated like the pandemic that it has in fact become, AIDS 
has been given the status of a "civil right" and a badge of honor among many 
homosexuals and their supporters. 

Many in the homosexual community are in denial about the consequences 
of their behavior. But ignoring the link between homosexuality and life- 


threatening illness is a sure formula for disaster. According to a report by 
WorldNetDaily on June 2, 2005, doctors in Canada and the United States 
began reporting a surprising increase in a highly contagious STD that some 
are calling the "new AIDS" According to a report in the Canadian Medical 
Association Journal, lymphogranuloma venereum, or LGV, is on the rise 
among homosexual men, and the CDC is now reporting confirmed cases in 
San Francisco, Atlanta, and New York City. LGV is a form of chlamydia, and 
if left untreated, it causes swelling of the genitals and rectum. It can lead to 
meningitis, encephalitis, and death. 

Even more tragically, doctors are now reporting a surge in the number of 
cases where young homosexual men have deliberately sought to contract 
HIV and AIDS in order to be a part of this "heroic campaign." Surely, this 
phenomenon has to be the expression of a death wish and a psychotic 
reaction to an epidemic that has grown immeasurably worse because of 
denial and delusion within the homosexual community. 


Let me say it again: same-sex attraction is neither inborn nor even 
permanent. Rather, it's an emotional choice. Psychologists tell us that in 
many cases something generally traumatic has happened in the life of 
certain individuals that has created a "gender-identity conflict" This in turn 
fosters an emotional disorder that can lead to homosexuality. But science 
and psychology have also shown that even long-term homosexuality can be 
cured, and the stories I've heard from countless individuals who have "come 
out" of the gay lifestyle are truly inspiring. I will share some of those in 
another chapter. Very much like recovery from alcohol and drug 
dependency, it's never an easy process. But with God, all things are possible. 

By exposing the myths that have been passed on by the homosexual 
community, and by providing strong arguments for holding on to biblical 
and historical standards, my aim here is not to further brutalize or stigmatize 
homosexuals. The evidence is so clear that they are already in a life-and- 
death struggle with their own desires and the physical reality of their 
condition. But in this book I am determined to marshal arguments and 
evidence that may help to counter the downward drift of our culture into 
sexual chaos and anarchy. The figures of death, disease, and dysfunction in 
this chapter are somber, and on the surface they can also be disheartening. 
But I truly believe that with God's help, there is hope. 

Disease can be controlled or moderated in many cases, and homosexuals 
can indeed change. I know that God is big enough to stop the advance of 
homosexual advocacy in our homes and schools. And I'm convinced that, 
with His help, we can win this struggle. But it will take all the courage and 
resolve we can muster, and in this regard, I can speak from experience. 


Homosexual hit squads have spray-painted my house, and they've shouted 
my colleagues and me down in many different places. It has happened at 
public gatherings and at churches. For a long time, in fact, some churches 
wouldn't invite me to come to speak because they were afraid of the 
consequences if homosexuals were to attack us. But God has preserved me, 
and the message continues. The fact is, God wants this word to get out. And 
when all is said and done. I'm convinced that God will hold us all 
accountable if we don't have the courage to stand and be counted. You only 
need to turn on your television to see evidence of the wickedness that's 
invading our culture and corrupting America's youth. So, whatever the cost. 
I'll be at my post. 

On the other side of the issue, I know from experience that we can win 
this debate if we will dare to take a stand and speak up when called upon. 
As just one example, in 1993 the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) announced that they were going to issue a new 
regulation calling for a "religion-free workplace" This was, of course, 
shocking to Christians and to many others all across the nation. So I 
consulted with my staff, and we decided to put out an alert to our friends 
and supporters. Then I spoke with the leaders of several Christian 
organizations, and over the next few weeks we got on the phone and talked 
to thousands of people all over the country. Before long, more than one 
hundred thousand letters flooded into the EEOC offices in Washington, 
calling on them to withdraw that odious new regulation. 

We then made an appointment at the EEOC headquarters and met with 
three members of their legal team. As I sat there with Gary Bauer, Beverly 
LaHaye, Ralph Reed, and representatives from the EEOC, I sensed that the 
lead counsel for the EEOC was about as lesbian as the pope is Catholic and 
that I needed to raise the issue of sexual diversity. This was, incidentally, on 
the heels of the homosexual March on Washington in 1993, which was also 
Bill Clinton's first year in office. So I said to her at one point, "Have you 
taken the issue of sexual diversity into consideration, in any way that would 
have affected this decision?" It was like I had stuck a hot fork in a filling in 
her mouth! That woman couldn't have jumped further, and she went into 
utter disequilibrium. 

A friend who had been in the room said to me later, "Lou, I thought you 
were going to have to go over there and do an exorcism on her!" Well, it was 
hot and heavy that day, but it was definitely worth the effort. 

Those one hundred thousand letters made a huge impact, in part because 
it had required unusual measures for them to process so much citizen 
response. The EEOC had to rent a warehouse to enter all that data into their 
computers, and they even had to hire additional staff to record all those 
names. Consequently, the department went over budget trying to process all 
that information. And you know that had a huge impact on their ultimate 
decision. Subsequently I went to see Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, and 
he decided to call a special hearing on this matter. That hearing, in turn, 


helped to set back the homosexual agenda in the workplace by years. 

Within a week of those meetings, one of the commissioners on the EEOC, 
a woman who was a holdover from the first President Bush, called me and 
said, "Man, did you blow that lawyer out of the water! As a result of your 
visit to our offices, we are totally rejecting the religion provisions of that 
statute. All the business about a 'religion-free workplace' is gone now." So 
that was just one example of the kinds of victories we've witnessed. It's 
evidence of the spiritual warfare we're engaged in, and there are many 
stories like that. 


If Christians and others who understand the consequences of the gay agenda 
and who struggle with statistics like the ones I've cited previously will begin 
to stand their ground, we will see change, and I'm convinced we'll see 
surprising victories in the months ahead. But that doesn't mean the struggle 
is over. Sexual hedonism still pervades the airwaves, and the Howard Stems 
and Michael Eisners of the world aren't going away without a fight. 

I'll have to admit that in some ways, the Tina Turner song I mentioned 
earlier was correct. The homosexual subculture has nothing to do with love 
or marriage or a lifetime commitment. As gay men have routinely confessed, 
monogamy is the last thing they want. What they want is unrestrained sexual 
license with absolute freedom to do to and with anyone they please 
whatever they please. But as any sane person should see, this is a formula 
for absolute disaster, and this is why the public health disaster for 
homosexuals in this country is out of control. 

Blocking advance of this homosexual deathstyle and restoring the moral 
foundations of our culture ought to be at the forefront of every Christian's 
concerns. As anthropologist J. D. Unwin made clear in his important work 
on sexuality and culture, no nation that rejects monogamy in marriage and 
premarital sexual chastity can last longer than a generation after it has 
embraced sexual license. Therefore, if we don't have change, renewal, and 
spiritual revival, along with a recommitment to the values that once exalted 
and ennobled this great nation, then our civilization will only sink deeper 
and deeper into dissipation, denial, and disaster. 

What this means, then, is that spiritual revival is essential for our national 
survival. What we need is not just legislation, not just activism, and not just 
change, but an authentic spiritual awakening that is bold enough and broad 
enough to restore the hope and vigor of our nation. 

Yes, we need a constitutional amendment to fully protect marriage. We 
need laws in Congress, the state legislatures, and all our local municipalities 
that uphold the importance of the intact two-parent family. But we must 


also have a renewed commitment to what is morally right and socially 
responsible if we want to see a turnaround in this prognosis of defeat. 

Homosexuality grows out of social disorder in the family, complicated by 
various other factors. This is not my discovery but the determination of 
countless psychologists and scholars. In general, homosexuality is rarely a 
factor where you have fathers training their sons to be responsible citizens 
and productive members of society. When mothers teach their daughters to 
be morally straight, when community organizations cooperate to support 
and defend the family, and when the messages coming from the media and 
other forces in the mainstream culture begin to celebrate and applaud 
morally responsible behavior, our children will have a healthy view of their 
sexuality and their role in society. 

But before I give the impression that all the problems are on the other 
side, or that they're the problem of the secular culture, let me be quick to 
say that the church, and particularly its leaders, has a lot of explaining to do 
as well. Because many have tried to avoid this issue, or have tried to avoid 
using biblical phrases and Scripture to point out what's at stake here, we 
have in a sense become unwilling coconspirators in this tragic loss of virtue. 
And now our own loss of moral judgment is staring us in the face, to such an 
extent that we not only smell the smoke at three o'clock in the morning, but 
also we suddenly see the flames racing down the hall. 

Sometimes I feel as if the church has become codependent on the corrupt 
culture, on the order of an alcoholic who wants to break the habit but can't 
let go of his familiar habits. Somehow we have to awaken the prophetic 
spirit and the immense power of the church to engage the culture in a more 
dynamic way. We need to regather our strength and our moral courage in 
order to help bring about a new moral formation and to bring a halt to the 
threats to our homes, families, and this nation. The church has to be the 
church once again. For too long the church has surrendered its moral 
authority, but there's an awakening taking place. Christians are reclaiming 
our mandate from God to become what Christ commanded the church to be. 
The successes of "values voters" has helped, but there's a lot more to do. 


For years we heard people say, "Never mix politics and religion! Church and 
state must remain totally separate:" But that philosophy simply won't work, 
and our Founding Father George Washington expressed the reason why 
that's true as well as it's ever been done. He said: "Of all the dispositions and 
habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are 
indispensable supports" They are, he said, "the great pillars of human 
happiness;" and they are absolutely indispensable if our society is to 
function the way it was designed. 


The separation of church and state is a lie. But the really good news is 
that today, more than ever. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and many others 
are joining hands in this fight to help restore the foundations of our 
civilization. The loss of moral authority over the last forty years hurt us a lot, 
but we should be quick to celebrate the fact that there's a new movement 
rising in our midst like a phoenix out of the ashes. It's a movement that is 
biblical, sanctified, and deeply committed to rebuilding the walls-like 
Nehemiah in the Old Testament-of what our forefathers called "the New 

When I was a boy in Washington DC, we never had a Christian Booksellers 
Association Convention. We didn't have the National Religious Broadcasters. 
But today we have both these tremendous organizations, which are being 
mobilized to change the culture. What we have is a re-creation, a 
clarification, and a reformation of where we stand. What I see so often these 
days is sophisticated Pentecostals, evangelical Protestants, and life-affirming 
Roman Catholics who are beginning to find common ground. That's what 
we're beginning to see around these social issues, and I couldn't be happier 
about that. 

At the Traditional Values Coalition we say that there are five moral issues 
that have been taken from us by the secular culture, and these are the ones 
we must now recapture. That's part of the battle that surfaced during the 
2004 presidential election when people motivated by values showed up in 
record numbers. Let me list them because I think the fact that Christians and 
other moral conservatives agree on these is a monumental step forward. The 
five are: 

1. The right to life-including the sanctity of life, euthanasia, stem cell 
research, and so on 

2. Pornography and obscenity, and how to limit their impact on families 

3. Supporting the family and the rights of parents to direct the destiny of 
their children (including all aspects of education and the home school 

4. Religious liberty-keeping the state off the back of the church 

5. The homosexual agenda-the defense of marriage and defending against 
the indoctrination of our children in the schools and colleges 

These are our issues. They're biblical issues, and we will define and 
defend them. They're the gold standard and the silver standard, and they're 
matters that ought to be central to the hopes and prayers of every believer. 
The price of potatoes or pork bellies or other things on the commodities 
market, those aren't our issues. But the Word of God and the moral and 
cultural issues that come forth from it, those are our issues. The sanctity of 
life and the prosperity of the family are our concern. 


In 1977, the talented singer and actress Anita Bryant was invited to 
Virginia Beach by Pat Robertson after she had helped to defeat a major 
homosexual initiative in Florida. I was on the platform that day when she 
spoke, and the first time she used the word homosexuals, the homosexual 
activists stood up and started shouting and causing a disturbance. That was 
the first time I'd ever seen that sort of thing in a public place. That was their 
tactic then, and it still is. Because the homosexual community cannot deal 
with truth, and because they can't argue with the statistics in this chapter in 
any sort of rational manner, they try to intimidate those who disagree with 
their agenda. 

Those are Brown Shirt tactics. They're not new. Hitler used them to 
diabolical effect, and they are still being used today. But there's a new spirit 
in the air. With God's help, we will get the word out, and we will win this 
debate. We will stand our ground because when homosexuals lie, people die, 
and this is one battle that God's people simply must win. 




The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if 
this cannot be inspired into our People, in a Greater Measure, than 
we have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of 
Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. We have no 
Government armed with power capable of contending with human 
passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our constitution was 
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly 
inadequate to the government of any other. 


IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, a fifth-grade teacher was forbidden to teach 
vital documents of American history, as the school's principal explained, 
because it would be a violation of the separation of church and state. 
Patricia Vidmar, principal of Stevens Creek Elementary School, demanded 
that Stephen Williams submit all his lesson plans and supplemental materials 
for her review, and she stipulated further that any document that mentioned 
God or the Bible could not be used. Among items censored by the school 
were the Declaration of Independence, the diaries of George Washington 
and John Adams, writings of William Penn, and constitutions of the thirteen 

No, this is not a scene from Brave New World. It actually happened in 
November 2004, and with the full support of the independent school district 
of that city. But now that intense media scrutiny has been focused on this 
case, is there any chance the principal's decisions will be upheld? In a 
statement to the media, Mr. Williams' lawyer from the Alliance Defense 
Fund, Gary McCaleb, said: "The district is simply attempting to cleanse all 
references to the Christian religion from our nation's history, and they are 
singling out Mr. Williams for discriminatory treatment. Their actions are 
unacceptable under both California and federal law" 

But what is the law? And what sort of defense do we need to uphold 
traditional Christian values and beliefs? Incidents involving the suppression 
of religious speech, and many of them much worse than this one, happen 
every day. Indeed, most of them go unreported. But in light of all the anti- 
Christian rulings of the last thirty years, including especially the issues 
discussed in these pages, we have to wonder if law and order still exist in 


this country. 

Judges, lawyers, and liberal activists have been playing fast and loose 
with law and order for years now. The idea of a "separation of church and 
law" that was hatched by the Supreme Court in its 1947 Everson decision 
has been a battering ram for shoving Christianity out of the public square. 
Since that time, every sort of perversion has crept into the public schools, 
and the slightest mention of Jesus Christ or the Bible can lead to litigation 
and outright persecution of Christians. 

In some places people are being prosecuted for hate crimes that often 
amount to little more than name-calling. In Canada and Western Europe 
these laws are becoming truly sinister. Recently the campaign to destroy 
religious freedom got a huge boost in Canada from a statute pushed through 
the Canadian parliament by homosexual activists. This legislation, known as 
Bill C-250, adds "sexual orientation" to Canada's hate crime laws. The day 
the bill passed, a homosexual activist named Mark Hanlon, at Memorial 
University in the Canadian province of Newfoundland, sent an e-mail to pro- 
family groups that said: 

These right-winged conservatives are teaching these same 
messages to their children for the good of society and for the good 
of morals and ethics. Let's get this one thing straight to all you 
Conservative groups-your children's attitudes, if they inherit these 
beliefs from you, will be in a minority down the road. You are 
setting them on a dangerous path of intolerance and hate. Stop 
this path-before the world of tomorrow judges them, and thanks 
to this bill, prisons [sic] or fines them. Crimes of hate against the 
LBGT community will be treated equally with anti-Semitism, and 
anti-African Canadian hate crimes. 

Rest assured, if homosexual activists have their way in the United States, 
we will see the same sorts of intimidation, along with an increasing 
mobilization against Christianity and moral values by those on the Left. The 
same people who scream "tolerance" and "diversity" are the first ones to 
persecute Christians and others who resist the gay agenda and the 
legalization of homosexual marriage. 

There have been some signs of backlash in Canada and a few other places, 
efforts to stop threats and harassment of this kind. But if you think for a 
minute that the same type of fascist mind control can't happen here in the 
United States, then you haven't been paying attention. 


There may be no better evidence of the homosexual agenda and the war 
being waged on moral judgment than the victory handed to homosexuals 


and their supporters by the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas 
(2003). In that contentious ruling, the Supreme Court overturned its own 
prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that state laws that 
outlawed sodomy were constitutional. In Bowers, the Court held that such 
laws were statebased and therefore not federal issues. But by the time the 
esteemed justices came to the Lawrence case twenty years later, things had 
changed. The agenda had done its work, and the Court struck down not just 
a Texas law that prohibited homosexual sodomy, but also similar laws in 
thirteen states. 

The case, followed closely by the homosexual community, was a huge win 
for the gay agenda. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the 
National Lesbian and Gay Task Force, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against 
Defamation celebrated wildly, sending talking heads to every media outlet. 
The Court never comments on its rulings and wouldn't do so in that case. 
But when presented with an appeal shortly thereafter to block a ruling by the 
Massachusetts Supreme Court that allowed homosexual marriage, the 
Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case, effectively 
declaring that homosexual marriages would be allowed to proceed. 

As a consequence of the legislative and judicial activism in Massachusetts, 
not only would homosexual weddings be allowed to proceed in that state, 
but also the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution could be 
invoked to sanction "civil unions" and "same-sex marriages" that had been 
enacted by the Vermont legislature in 1999 and by the mayors of San 
Francisco and New Paltz, New York, in February and March of 2004, among 

What happened between 1986 and 2003 to change the Court's view of 
sodomy? According to one reporter for a prominent homosexual publication, 
"The justices have spent an unprecedented amount of time with out gay men 
and lesbians and have even faced speculation about the sexual orientation of 
one of their own, David Souter" 

But whether or not any member of the present Court may be homosexual, 
or merely supportive of the homosexual agenda, there are homosexuals on 
the staff of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the shift in thinking among 
these justices is not merely ideological but also practical-a matter shaped to 
some degree by the day-to-day realities of their working environment. 

Not everyone on the Court, however, was so blind to what was actually 
happening in the Lawrence decision. Justice Antonin Scalia penned a 
powerful dissent in the Lawrence case that made more than clear what was 
behind the Court's misguided ruling. In it. Justice Scalia said, "Today's 
opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession 
culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by 
which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed 
at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to 


homosexual conduct." 

The Supreme Court was less than objective in this case, he said, and with 
the concurrence of justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Scalia was letting the 
Court and the nation know that their lack of honesty and objectivity were 
not being overlooked by the American people. In his extensive remarks, the 
associate justice went on to say that: 

It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture 
war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that 
the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many 
Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual 
conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their 
children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in 
their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their 
families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and 

The Supreme Court views any effort by citizens to resist homosexual 
indoctrination as discrimination, Scalia added, which is something the 
members of the Court apparently believe they're empowered to stamp out. 
Then Justice Scalia said: 

So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti- 
antihomosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the 
attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in 
most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those 
who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal. 

There was little doubt that the mainstream media and those on the 
political Left would bristle at these words, but this man of conscience was 
not backing down. He made it clear that he wasn't merely being narrow and 
judgmental in his view. But, rather, he said: 

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any 
other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic 
means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change 
over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow 
citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That 
homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is 
attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining 
States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. 

Using the power of persuasion is one thing, he said, but for the Supreme 
Court to impose its liberal bias on the nation, and to create policies by 
judicial fiat that would never be approved by the voters, is not justice but 
totalitarianism. Then Scalia went on to say that, "What Texas has chosen to 
do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand 


should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new ' constitutional 
right' by a Court that is impatient of democratic change." 

The travesty wasn't just that a 143-year-old Texas statute had been struck 
down by the Court, but the abuse of power that came with it and the 
attitude of a six-justice majority that felt their own personal ideology could 
trump constitutional law and "the will of the people." After all, as Justice 
Scalia concluded, "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are 
to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows 


In state after state, and now even in the U.S. Supreme Court, we are seeing 
how the homosexual lobby and their legions have managed to convince the 
justice system to do their bidding. Using tactics they learned from Hitler's 
manifesto. Mein Kampf, and other forms of coercion and intimidation more 
appropriate to the Soviet gulags, the homosexual hit squads aren't simply 
responding to mere provocation. They're not defending themselves; they are 
on the attack against every sign of resistance to their battle plan for the 
conquest of moral judgment. 

As if the Lawrence decision weren't bad enough by itself, the Court's 
misjudgment has opened the doors to other bad laws in other jurisdictions. 
In February 2005, a federal judge in Pennsylvania was so moved by the 
Lawrence decision that he declared federal obscenity laws to be 
unconstitutional. In one of the most outrageous cases I've ever seen. Judge 
Gary Lancaster declared that "public morality is not a legitimate state 
interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual 
conduct, even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's 
sense of morality." 

According to Lancaster's warped sense of justice, the Constitution 
guarantees a "right to sexual privacy, which encompasses a right to possess 
and view sexually explicit material in the privacy of one's own home" 
Specifically, he was referring to the case against a group of pomographers 
called Extreme Associates that films women being beaten, raped, tortured, 
and even murdered. In their own advertising, the individuals who run this 
despicable operation claim to explore "the depths of human depravity." But 
Judge Lancaster saw no wrong and found the pomographers innocent of any 
crime. But we saw this coming. This is where bad law like the Lawrence 
decision is bound to lead. 

Another example of a situation where law enforcement got it all wrong 
was the case of the eleven Christians who were arrested on October 10, 
2004, at an "Outfest" gay pride event in Philadelphia. When homosexual 
activists spotted this small group of Christians, merely praying, singing, and 


reading Scripture on a city sidewalk, they sounded the alarm and called on a 
gang of homosexual vigilantes known as "The Pink Angels," who did 
everything imaginable to obstruct, impede, and prevent the Christians from 
speaking freely in a public forum. 

The homosexuals cursed and threatened the Christians, and then held up 
large sheets of cardboard to keep passers-by from reading the signs the 
protesters were holding. But these belligerent homosexuals weren't stopped 
or even warned by the police. Instead, Philadelphia's finest hand-cuffed and 
arrested all eleven members of the Christian group. Repent America, from 
seventeen to seventy-two years of age, and hauled them off to jail. 
Eventually five of them, including the group's founder Michael Marcavage, 
along with Mark Diener, James Cruse, Dennis Green, and a seventeen-year- 
old teenager, were ordered to stand trial. 

Labeled the "Philadelphia Five" by the media, these were simply 
Christians dedicated to peaceful resistance to public displays of perversion. 
By singing, praying, and sharing the gospel with any who would listen, they 
were trying to provide an alternative point of view. But the homosexuals 
were having none of that, and charges filed against the Christians included 
criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and incitement to riot, all felonies, 
plus five other misdemeanor charges. 

If convicted, they were told, these Bible-believing Christians would have 
faced up to forty-seven years in prison and fines as high as $90,000. As the 
news of this outrage was broadcast around the country, I'm sure many 
people had to be asking themselves: What's the world coming to when 
honest Christians can be threatened with forty-seven years in jail for 
speaking against sin, while a crowd of angry homosexuals are given the red 
carpet treatment? 

Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan reportedly 
charged the Christians after viewing a videotape of the incident. You have to 
wonder what he was seeing. But what disturbed me most of all was the 
report that attorneys for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) were 
present at the scene and had apparently advised police officers to arrest only 
the Christians. Later, a confidential source at the DOJ told WorldNetDaily, a 
popular Internet news site, what had happened. 


As soon as I learned of the government involvement, I immediately 
contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington to find out what 
was going on. I was shocked that federal attorneys were advising 
Philadelphia police to arrest innocent Christians who were, in fact, being 
threatened and harassed by a gay mob. Shortly thereafter we also learned 
that the Outfest organizers had planned in advance to confront and attack 


any Christian protesters they encountered. 

As chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, I asked for an 
investigation into the matter, and if it turned out that DOJ lawyers were 
actually involved, then appropriate action would have to be taken. At the 
very least, the federal government would be implicated in a civil rights 
violation and could be sued in federal court. Eventually a judge of the 
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dropped the charges, while 
implicitly accusing the Christians of using KKK and Nazi tactics. 

But the senior attorney for the American Family Association's Center for 
Law and Policy, Brian Fahling, wasn't letting this fiasco fade silently away. 
Instead, he filed charges in federal court on behalf of the Philadelphia 11 
and called for a Department of justice investigation of the corruption and 
abuse of power by officers of the court in "the city of brotherly love." 

This is just one more example of how far the homosexual lobby will go to 
silence its critics. But make no mistake: society cannot survive if law 
enforcement turns a blind eye to hostility and intimidation toward the 
Christian majority by homosexuals, and then excuses those guilty of 
targeting citizens who have a First Amendment right to speak their mind in a 
public forum. And more importantly, we can't even call ourselves a 
constitutional republic when justice Department lawyers are suddenly taking 
sides against moral values and standing with sexual deviants. 

Unfortunately, this sort of behavior is all too common today, as one 
expert witness pointed out at a congressional hearing a few years ago. When 
Robert Knight, then on the staff of the Family Research Council, testified 
before a U.S. Senate committee in 1999, he made it clear that Christians and 
other moral conservatives are being targeted by homosexuals. As in the 
Philadelphia case, the homosexual antagonists are almost always excused 
while the Christians are prosecuted under hate crimes laws. 

In that testimony, Knight pointed out that these new politically correct 
hate laws are not enforced equally. He cited the example of Pastor Ralph 
Ovadal, founder of Wisconsin Christians United, in Madison, Wisconsin, who 
was physically attacked in 1996 while protesting a pro-homosexuality photo 
display at a public school. Pastor Ovadal and a friend held up signs that said 
simply, "Homosexuality Is Wrong" and "Homosexuals: Repent or Perish" 

But suddenly an angry gay man in the crowd grabbed one of the signs and 
ran away. When Pastor Ovadal confronted him, the man turned and punched 
Ovadal and knocked him to the ground. A medical report filed later indicated 
that the assault had caused "abrasions, contusions, and an injured ankle" 
However, here again, police took the other side in the dispute. The angry 
homosexual wasn't charged with a "hate crime;" even though the city of 
Madison has a strong hate crimes law in place. Instead, the belligerent 
attacker was able to bargain for a misdemeanor charge that was about as 
stiff as a traffic ticket. 


In another case in 1991, Dr. Charles Mcllhenny's home was firebombed 
by homosexuals who were "offended" by his stand against the homosexual 
agenda in that community. When his church was attacked, he had called the 
city's hate crimes unit and was told that "the Christians have their point of 
view, and the homosexuals have theirs" So they "cancel each other out;" and 
no charges could be filed. This is what happens to "law and order" when 
homosexuals rule. 

Despite the destruction of property, physical assault on a pastor and his 
parishioners, and the disruption of a worship service-a clear violation of 
California state law-the police in that case refused to help, and I will have 
more to say about that shortly. But as Robert Knight testified before the U.S. 
Senate, "Apparently, some hate crime victims are more important than 
others" And that's why "hate crimes" laws are always a bad idea. 


For students and teachers at a church school in Ohio, their opposition to 
homosexuality took a sinister turn when a homosexual activist called them 
with a bomb threat. In that incident, the pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church 
and School in Westlake, Ohio, took the call from an individual who 
demanded that the pastor go on local TV and announce that he had changed 
his position on homosexual marriage. If the demand wasn't satisfied in one 
hour, the caller said, he would set off an explosive device hidden in the 
building. School principal Jim Krupski said later that the caller was angry 
about the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's stance on homosexuality. 
"That's as much as we know," he told reporters, "and we leave it in the 
hands of God to hopefully turn this person's heart so that they repent of 
what they've done... " 

Westlake police were called, and they quickly evacuated all 280 students 
and the staff from the building, but found no bomb. But St. Paul's Church 
wasn't the only Christian group targeted by homosexuals in that city. A few 
weeks earlier, a janitor at another church in Westlake had been beaten by a 
group of homosexuals in retaliation for the pastor's recent sermon on the sin 
of homosexuality. Troubling? Yes. Uncommon? No, and less so every year. 
But this is what may be happening everywhere if current trends continue. 
Homo-fascism is a reality now in Canada, and it's only a matter of time until 
the assault on Christianity and moral values invades every city and town- 
unless, by God's mercy, justice is somehow restored. 

For thousands of years we've known the consequences of sin, and the 
Bible offers a safe and secure guide for maintaining a healthy and vibrant 
society. But how much have things really changed over the centuries? King 
David put the question long ago: "If the foundations are destroyed, what can 
the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3, NKJV). 


Today we're still trying to answer that question and deal with the 
consequences of our choices. In the preceding verse, the psalmist says, "The 
wicked bend their bow; they make ready their arrow on the string, that they 
may shoot secretly at the upright in heart" (v. 2, NKJv). The technology has 
changed since David's day, but there's no question that evil men still prey on 
the righteous. Only today they have advocates in some of the highest offices 
in the land. 

It's common knowledge that hate crimes laws punish religious freedom 
and attempt to control private thoughts and beliefs, yet in May 2003 Senator 
Ted Kennedy reintroduced what he calls the Local Law Enforcement 
Enhancement Act (S. 966), to try once again to create a federal hate crimes 
initiative. As you would imagine, this is a high priority for homosexual 
activists. Kennedy attempted to pass virtually the same legislation in 1997, 
1999, 2001, and then in 2003. The latest version included the term 
"gender;" which is a code word for crossdressers, transvestites, and 
transsexuals. Kennedy insists that the bill is needed because of an epidemic 
of hate crimes against minorities and homosexuals. When he reintroduced 
the bill in 2003, he said, "Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue 
to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported" 
But those statistics are misleading. 

A study by the Republican Policy Committee of the Senate, published in 
the months following Kennedy's proposal, reported that this bill would 
seriously undermine local law enforcement efforts. With Kennedy's bill, 
every crime labeled as a "hate crime" would be federalized, meaning that 
federal prosecutors would be in a position to prosecute local cases. The 
study said that: 

In practice, every interracial crime with minority victims will 
automatically have to be considered a possible "hate crime"-as 
will every crime where the victim is a homosexual, a transsexual, a 
transvestite, disabled, or a known member of a religion; such 
consideration will even extend to most crimes in which the victim 
is a woman. The bill would encourage police to treat victims 
differently depending on whether they fit into a special status 
created by Congress. 

Kennedy's bill set out to criminalize the beliefs of m illi ons of Americans 
who are critical of homosexuality, and it included any criticism of deviant 
sexual behaviors in the same category with racism, misogyny, and anti- 
Semitism. The closing statement of the Republican report put these matters 
in proper perspective. In it. Senator Jon Kyi writes that: 

The moral and religious objections that many millions of 
Americans have toward homosexual, transsexual, and transvestite 
behavior ought not be compared to the marginalized and hateful 
viewpoints of a few on issues of race. But if Congress truly seeks 


such an extension of the civil rights laws to reach homosexuals, 
transvestites, and transsexuals, it should do so through 
appropriate legislation that provides for the full airing of that 
debate. By including these groups in hate crime legislation, 
advocates seek a "stealth" addition to the legislatively defined 
"protected classes" of the civil rights laws. 

Kennedy's bill actually said that moral disapproval is "inappropriate and 
unacceptable" It further condemned the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and 
Muslims who hold strong reservations about homosexuality and compared 
them to Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan. What Jon Kyi's group 
wanted to do, however, was illustrate the hypocrisy and absurdity of those 


The FBI's 160-page report that summarizes hate crimes reported by law 
enforcement agencies around the nation says there were a total of 8,715 
offenses, 9,100 victims, and 6,934 offenders involved in hate crimes 
incidents in 2003. Of those, 51.4 percent were racially motivated; 17.9 
percent were due to religious bias; just 16.6 percent were attributed to 
sexual orientation; and 13.7 percent involved the ethnicity or national origin 
of the victim. In addition, 0.4 percent of the cases involved persons with a 
physical or mental disability. 

None of these crimes are acceptable, of course. Attacking anyone because 
of his race, religion, nationality, or personal appearance is offensive and 
ought to be punished. But let's take a closer look. For example, how do these 
numbers compare to overall crime rate in this country? According to FBI and 
DOJ statistics, there were 16,500 murders in the United States in calendar 
2003, which comes to almost six murders for every 100,000 U.S. residents. 
In addition, there were 413,402 robberies that year, which is a rate of 142.2 
robberies per 100,000 residents. 

An earlier FBI report reveals that of the 18,097 murders committed in 
calendar 1997, 13 of them were listed as hate crimes. The victims were all 
men, and the perpetrators were all men. Exactly 3 of the victims in those 
cases were homosexuals. Of 16,914 murder victims in 1998, FBI records 
show that 4 could be considered hate crimes directed at homosexuals. Of 
the 1,317 crimes reported as hate crimes against homosexuals in 1999, all of 
them involved simple assault, physical intimidation, or name-calling. And of 
a total of 11.6 million crimes reported to the FBI in 2000, only 1,517 
involved sexual orientation. This is slightly more than one onethousandth of 
1 percent. Hardly an "epidemic. ." 

What ought to concern us is not an array of insults labeled as hate crimes, 
but situations when there are actual infractions of the law, such as arson, 


assault and battery, burglary, drug offenses, gang violence, murder, rape, 
vandalism, and things of that nature. All of these crimes are already on the 
books. They don't have to be invented. Furthermore, they're crimes that 
civilized societies have always punished. And they don't single out certain 
privileged groups for special rights. They are there to protect all citizens, as 
the law is intended to do. 

The prophet Jeremiah got it right: "The heart is deceitful above all things, 
and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9). But the laws of a just 
and virtuous nation are meant to punish wrongful behaviors, not to police 
what a person may be thinking at the time of a violent act. It's God's job to 
judge the heart; the law can only judge actions and behaviors, and that's a 
concept the Founding Fathers surely understood. 

When they penned the Bill of Rights included in the United States 
Constitution, the Founding Fathers meant to protect American citizens from 
unwarranted assaults by law enforcement on the privacy of citizens. The 
Fourth Amendment says: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon 
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to 
be seized. 

Likewise, the First Amendment, which was specifically written by James 
Madison and Thomas Jefferson to protect individual liberties, holds that: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a 
redress of grievances. 

This is what liberty is all about. All citizens have the right to speak their 
mind in the public forum, so long as they do not incite violence or physically 
harm another person in the process. The free exercise of religion, if nothing 
else, certainly means that we possess the right to read Scripture, sing hymns, 
and proclaim the gospel without fear of intimidation by goons or 
government agents. Neither Congress nor any law enforcement agency can 
change that fact: so says the Constitution. But as we're discovering, some 
who hold high and mighty offices prefer to ignore or to misinterpret these 



If public officials really want to stem hate and violence against 
homosexuals, they might start by reading the book entitled Men Who Beat 
the Men Who Love Them, by David Island and Patrick Letellier. These 
authors, who are editors of a National Lesbian & Gay Domestic Violence 
Network newsletter, report that there may be as many as 650,000 incidents 
of domestic violence among same-sex partners each year. "The probability of 
violence occurring in a gay couple," they write, "is mathematically double 
the probability of that in a heterosexual couple... " In the light of media 
scrutiny following that widely publicized comment, the authors backtracked 
slightly on their estimate. But by any measure, the amount of violence in 
homosexual households far exceeds that of heterosexual couples. 

Another study published in the law review of Valparaiso University 
reported that from 50,000 to 100,000 lesbians and as many as 500,000 
homosexual men are battered each year in this country. And a separate 
report published in 1998 by the American Bar Association estimated that 
domestic violence among gay and lesbians is a major concern for between 
25 to 33 percent of all cohabiting samesex couples. 

So where is the hate? Clearly, the problem is not primarily in traditional 
homes or among heterosexual couples. But thanks to intense pressures from 
the homosexual community, police and law enforcement are looking for 
ways to punish those who resist the homosexual agenda. If they succeed, it 
will only be a matter of time until hate crimes laws are used against pastors 
and others who preach against homosexuality from the pulpit. Pastor 
Kristopher Okwedy, of Port Richmond, New York, offers a case in point. In 
2000, he put up two billboards with quotes from Leviticus about 
homosexuality. He was forced to remove the quotes a few days later because 
they violated that city's pro-homosexual antidiscrimination ordinance. 

In Madison, Wisconsin, Christian firefighter Ron Greet lost his job for 
distributing a pamphlet entitled "The Truth about Homosexuality" to his 
colleagues at the firehouse. My dear friend-who is a gifted speaker, a former 
congressional candidate, and an outspoken leader of the black community in 
that city-was eventually suspended and ordered to attend diversity training 
for violating Madison's antidiscrimination code. On campuses all over the 
country, students are forced to attend "sensitivity training" to enforce 
acceptance of homosexuality, and many large corporations now insist that 
employees maintain a homosexual-friendly culture. 

These are just a few examples of how hate crimes laws have been used to 
silence those who have legitimate objections to homosexuality on biblical 
grounds, and there are many others. The homosexual lobby's efforts to 
create a new category of crime are actually an effort to punish individuals 
who stray from the politically correct orthodoxy. Employers and employees 
will lose freedom of speech and religion if those, like Senator Kennedy cited 
above, have their way. Typically, hate crimes laws have prohibitions against 
"intimidating" or "coercing" an individual. Depending on who is doing the 


accusation, this could be as simple as quoting Scripture to a co-worker or 
leaving a tract on someone's desk. 

An article in the Wall Street Journal described the tyranny of hate crimes 
laws. Like all restrictions on free speech, the writers said, any ban on "racist" 
or "homophobic" speech would rest on a slippery slope. Most Christian 
denominations believe that homosexuality is a sin. So are these people to be 
silenced by law because their view is unacceptable to gays? Maybe we aren't 
there yet, they write, but when people can be given additional time in jail for 
what they were thinking while committing a crime, we're fast approaching 
"rule by a thought police" A good many people, the journal reporters 
suggested, including some who support hate crimes legislation, might find 
that "a hateful outcome" 

Political scientist Ronald J. Pestritto, who teaches at St. Vincent College 
in Pennsylvania and serves as an adjunct fellow with the Claremont Institute 
observed recently that hate crimes legislation is actually a political fad that 
"seeks to criminalize all feelings, thoughts, or attitudes that run contrary to 
the trends of the day." 

In his article "The Ideology of Hate Crimes;" Professor Pestritto said that 
hate crimes laws must first assume that "there are more serious crimes out 
there than murder, or the taking of human life." And advocates of hate 
crimes laws must believe that "crimes motivated by animus toward 
homosexuals must be considered the most hateful of all. Thus, we see that 
anti-homosexual murder is considered worse than other kinds of murder, yet 
beating another human being unconscious with a brick and dancing with 
glee about it-as Los Angeles rioters did live on television a few years ago-is 
hardly considered a crime at all since it was motivated by rage over the 
racist Rodney King trial verdict." 

In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, James B. 
Jacobs and Kimberly Potter write that hate crimes laws are aimed at 
criminalizing personal opinions and beliefs. The term "hate crime;" they say, 
isn't about hate at all, but what a person believes about right and wrong. "By 
linking hate speech prohibitions to generic criminal law," they write, "many 
well-meaning advocacy groups and politicians seek to shake a fist at the kind 
of ideas, opinions, and degenerate personalities that ' right-thinking' people 

"But;' they add, "we must consider whether punishing crimes motivated 
by politically unpopular beliefs more severely than crimes motivated by 
other factors itself violates our First Amendment traditions" Yes, that 
should be at the top of the list. Why should someone who kills a 
homosexual receive a harsher sentence than someone who beats a woman to 
death while stealing her purse? It's reasonable to assume that both killers 
were motivated by violence and hatred. At the very least, neither killer 
showed respect for their victim, which is an issue with most hate crimes 



Frankly, I'm hard pressed to understand what such high-minded 
lawmakers are thinking. There's no loving way to beat someone to death. Yet 
hate crime advocates would gladly add a more severe penalty to certain 
convictions because of what the criminal may have been thinking when he 
or she committed a crime. 


There's no epidemic of hate crime in America, and such laws are merely an 
attempt to criminalize a person's thoughts. In addition, they violate free 
speech and create a permanent "victim class" that receives special rights not 
afforded to other citizens. Hate crimes generally include "hate speech" as 
well, or actions that might be perceived by some people as hateful. The law 
should not be used as a weapon to protect deviant practices that millions of 
Americans oppose. And that's why we ought to resist them. 

Is there a price to pay for standing up for our beliefs and resisting those 
who are trying to stamp out our values? Yes, there is. But the price is not too 
high if we truly understand what's at stake. Over the last thirty years I've 
been verbally and physically attacked at least twenty-seven times because of 
my stand on the homosexual agenda. It has happened on airplanes, in 
airports, on the street, in hotels and churches, at my office, and even at my 
home, where homosexual "storm troopers" have invaded our workplace 
screaming profanities and threatening us with physical harm. They storm- 
trooped my home in California, and the police had to come out to both the 
office and the house to stop these assaults. In addition, I have been burned 
in effigy two times, once in San Francisco and once in Sacramento, 

To make my point, let me describe in the next few pages the "live and let 
live" tactics that homosexuals have used with me. These are just some of the 
times when I've been attacked for daring to stand up against the gay agenda. 
The first was in the spring of 1988. I was at the hall of administration in 
Santa Ana, the county seat of Orange County, California. Jeff LeToumeau 
was the leader of the ACT UP group in that area, and they literally attacked 
me when I arrived. I had come to testify against a policy ordinance 
concerning domestic partnership benefits, and the homosexuals thought 
they could silence me. They didn't. 

Then there was the time when a large group of muscular homosexuals 
came to our offices in Anaheim and tried to dump horse manure all over our 
office. Two of them tried to break into our office. The cops came but did not 
arrest them. My son, Stephen, who was a student at Western School of Law, 
tackled two of them when they came into our suite, forcing them back out 
of the office. Meanwhile, the police did absolutely nothing. 


On another evening when I was appearing on television in San Diego, 
word went out to the homosexuals that I was there, so they went to my 
home and tried to storm-troop it while I was away. Fortunately, a friend 
nearby saw what was happening and called the police. Then at the last 
minute the station in San Diego decided there was too much commotion to 
have me at the station, so they arranged for me to do my part of the 
broadcast from a remote location. It's a good thing they found another 
location to tape the interview because, sure enough, another group of 
homosexuals showed up at the station to try and shut them down. 

On another occasion I was in Redding, in Northern California, at the 
North Valley Baptist Church, when they attempted to disturb the worship 
service. But fortunately the sheriff of Shasta County, who attends that 
church, was in the sanctuary at the time, and he wasn't about to put up with 
that nonsense. He immediately had them all removed. Later I was at the 
Echoes of Faith Church in Ontario, California, when another mob attempted 
to disturb the service. And again at Power Community Church, where 
California Assemblyman Gil Ferguson was speaking for the coalition. They 
tried to shut down those meetings, but to no avail. 


When we held a conference on Reparative Therapy, we rented a hotel in 
Anaheim for a two-day seminar at which Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who is head of 
the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality 
(NARTH), was to speak, along with Congressman Bill Dannemeyer and Dr. 
Jeffrey Satinover. Several hundred guests were signed up to attend the event, 
but a large gang of homosexuals appeared suddenly and tried to take over 
the podium. We were able to block that attempt. However, during the night 
they managed to set off stink bombs in the conference rooms that soon 
filled the entire hotel with foul and acrid fumes that were carried up through 
the entire building by the ventilation system. That was the first time they 
actually succeeded in disrupting our event, but it was also a graphic example 
for our conferees that. I'm sure, only stiffened their resolve. 

Sometime later, in 1989, we announced a seminar on how the church 
ought to respond to threats from homosexuals, and a group of storm 
troopers came to the hotel ahead of our meeting and blocked the entrance 
to the hotel. The police came and literally moved them out. Then on Labor 
Day weekend 1990, homosexuals showed up at my home in Anaheim on a 
Saturday. A group from Los Angeles and surrounding counties encircled the 
cul-de-sac where we live. The neighbors saw it and came to our rescue by 
calling the police and doing a number of other things. Then, about a year 
later, in October 1991, the homosexual gangs storm-trooped our office in 

Gov. Pete Wilson had just come into office, and he had vetoed the gay 


rights bill that homosexuals pushed through the Assembly. The Traditional 
Values Coalition had raised a tremendous level of awareness on the issue. So 
as soon as the news was broadcast that the bill had failed, our offices were 
storm-trooped by hoodlums. The police were called, and they had to take us 
out using the fire escape of that old building. We went down a rickety old 
ladder from the fifth floor, which was challenging, but we made it just fine. 

A year later in the fall of 1992, our house was spray-painted with all sorts 
of vulgar and hate-filled words by homosexuals. Then, a few days after the 
homosexual March on Washington in April 1993, my wife and I had plans to 
leave on Tuesday morning to head home. We chose that day because we 
thought everyone would be cleared out by then, but we were wrong. As we 
were waiting in line to get our boarding passes, I heard these wild catcalls 
behind me, and I knew who it was. It was a group of homosexuals who had 
stayed over. We ignored it, got our boarding passes, and went down to the 
gate. That's when I realized that these people were going to be on the same 
plane, first to Chicago, and then to John Wayne Airport in Orange County. 

We boarded the flight, and Beverly and I were seated in the bulkhead row. 
We settled in, and the plane took off. As I was reading the morning paper, a 
homosexual came up to me and slashed the paper in half with his fist. He 
stuck his finger in my chest and said, "I'm dying of AIDS, and you're going to 
die, too" 

I took that as a personal threat, so I took off my seat belt and immediately 
walked up to the first class section and spoke to a flight attendant. I said, 
"My life has been threatened," and she just laughed at me. She didn't know 
what I was talking about, but another flight attendant who knew who I was 
intervened. She had seen me on John McLaughlin's Sunday morning 
television program on which I had debated Congressman Barney Frank-and, 
quite frankly, I had run circles around him. 

That flight attendant immediately went to see the captain. He came out of 
the cockpit, put on his cap and jacket, straightened his tie, and walked back 
to the coach section of the plane. They were stamping their feet in rhythm, 
yelling, "Shame, shame!" Well, one thing you don't do is stamp your feet on 
an airplane at thirty thousand feet, so the captain got on the loudspeaker 
and said, "In case some of you may not know it, I am the law up here, and 
my instructions to passengers and crew members on this aircraft are the law. 
If those of you who are creating a disturbance don't stop what you're doing 
immediately, I will land this plane in Pittsburgh and have every last one of 
you arrested by the police officers at the gate" Some of them acted as if they 
weren't going to stop, but others convinced them to quit while they were 

At that point the captain moved us up to first class-it was the first time I'd 
ever flown first class-and when we got to Chicago, it turned out he had 
called ahead and notified the authorities. So when we landed, an American 
Airlines security officer met the plane, along with a Chicago police officer. 


several plainclothes policemen, and airport security. They escorted Beverly 
and me off the plane, but no sooner had we left the Jetway than another 
homosexual began taunting us. Then, very quickly, one of the officers 
opened his coat and put his hand on his gun and said, "If you don't leave 
these folks alone, you're going to be flat on your back!" 

That shocked the homosexual, and he immediately started yelling, "First 
Amendment," and all those things. Airport personnel took us back to a 
holding area, and we waited there until things calmed down. When we 
boarded the plane for Orange County, they put us in first class again, and 
everything went smoothly until we landed. But as we were pulling up to the 
terminal in California, I noticed that our plane was moving very slowly. And 
when we turned onto the tarmac, I looked out the window and noticed 
several sheriff's vehicles on the runway. At that point the captain came on 
the loudspeaker and said, "I want everyone to remain in your seats with your 
seatbelts fastened. This aircraft is under restriction" 

When they opened the door, police officers came on board and said they 
wanted to take Beverly and me off first. So I asked one of them, "Officer, 
why are you doing this?" And he said, "Your friends in the back of the plane 
have been on the phone, and there are three hundred homosexuals out there 
ready to eat you alive" So they took us down the stairwell and put Beverly in 
one vehicle and me in another and took us to a secure area. I must say, that 
was one of the most harried times we've had. But it wouldn't be the last. 


Sometime later there was an encounter at the Oakland Airport when I went 
there to speak. Some homosexuals were in front of me on a Southwest 
Airlines flight. It was very early on a Sunday morning, and I was on my way 
to speak at the 10:00 a.m. service at a large black church. This group of 
homosexuals did the same thing the earlier group had done on the 
Southwest flight: they called ahead using the in-flight phones, and when I 
arrived, there was a whole bunch of homosexuals waiting for me. I just 
walked right past them. They were yelling and screaming, and the other 
people in the terminal weren't sure whom they were screaming at. But they 
were walking five or six feet behind me, and they kept it up until we got to 
the baggage claim. At that point a policeman told them to either stop it or 
go outside, and that's where it ended. 

On another occasion in Santa Ana, California, the homosexuals wanted to 
have a parade on Father's Day. So we went to the Santa Ana City Council 
with people from forty or fifty of the local churches, and we were able to 
stop it. But when the meeting was over, the homosexuals confronted us in 
the hallway with several hundred of their supporters. They created quite a 
ruckus and had us pinned against the walls. The meeting eventually had to 
be dismissed; it was a terrible experience, but no one was hurt. 


Then it was Labor Day weekend in the park in Santa Ana. Since we had 
convinced the city council to stop their parade, the homosexual storm 
troopers decided to come after us. We took the same group of pastors and 
church leaders who had gone with us to city hall and held a rally at the other 
end of the park. We stayed on our end of the park, but the homosexuals 
came to our end and, once again, began yelling and screaming and creating a 

The police protected us very well. The next day, which was a Sunday, the 
gays had a parade in the park, and a group of what I'd call "radical 
Christians" (a group we did not by any means support) showed up with 
shopping bags full of soiled baby diapers. They confronted the homosexuals 
and began throwing dirty diapers into their cars. As you can imagine, a riot 
soon broke out. 

We did not support those tactics, and we do not believe in doing anything 
that humiliates or injures another person, no matter how much we may 
disagree with their words or actions. But when the local newspaper ran a 
story about the confrontation, I had to laugh. The reporter said, "Rev. 
Sheldon was nowhere to be found," as if I'd orchestrated the counter-protest 
and then skipped out. The reason Rev. Sheldon was nowhere to be found 
was because I was in Modesto speaking at another event. 

I didn't want any part of what took place that day, and I don't support 
those tactics. But that doesn't mean the other side doesn't resort to such 
disgusting tactics. As an example, on one occasion we were having a 
ministers' seminar on the homosexual agenda in Sacramento, and fifty or 
sixty homosexual activists came in through the service entrance of the Hyatt 
Hotel and took over that meeting, as they had done on other occasions. 
Unfortunately, the hotel was afraid to arrest them in those days, so that 
meeting was shut down too. 

These are examples of the homo-fascist tactics that homosexual activists 
have learned from Adolf Hitler: when you have no valid arguments, and 
when you can't persuade by reason alone, then take over and intimidate by 
violence. The events of that day illustrated in graphic terms how belligerent 
and dangerous these homosexual hit squads have become, and our 
supporters weren't the only ones watching. More and more, the public is 
recognizing what the homosexual agenda is all about. We've seen these 
tactics before, and we all know where they lead. And in time, I believe, their 
own behavior will condemn them. 


Perhaps the most shocking and widely publicized attack took place in 
September 1993, when I was speaking at the Hamilton Square Baptist 
Church in San Francisco. During the evening service, a large group of 


homosexuals gathered outside the church and attempted to stop people 
from entering. As usual, attendance on Sunday night at that church was very 
good, and the Christians just pushed their way through the crowd and came 
on in. 

I had been invited to speak that night. When my wife and I entered the 
church, there were fifteen to twenty militant homosexuals on the sidewalk 
outside waving signs and chanting. As we were talking with the pastor. Dr. 
David Innes, before the service began, we observed that the crowd had 
grown larger, to nearly one hundred. At that point, the thugs outside began 
destroying church property, breaking the cement benches in the church 
courtyard, and ruining the flower gardens. They hauled down the American 
and Christian flags and raised the homosexual multicolored flag in their 
place. And when we looked out the window, we could see church members 
being accosted as they arrived. In several cases, their Bibles were yanked 
from their hands, and the front doors were body-blocked by large numbers 
of angry homosexuals. We had to rescue many people by pulling them 
through that human blockade, among them our friends Pastor Charles 
Mcllhenny and his wife. 

The police were called, and we asked them to stop the destruction of 
church property and to put an end to the harassment of church members. 
But with a very sad and broken spirit, we were told by these officers that 
they were not allowed to interfere in the homosexuals' demonstration 
against us-by orders of the San Francisco government. Recently, they said, a 
policeman had been put on administrative leave for stopping homosexuals 
from committing public sex acts, even though there were laws against that 
in the city. The sergeant told me, "If I stop these people, the Board of 
Supervisors will put me on leave" 

We continued to hear the chanting as we began the service that evening, 
and after praise and worship I was introduced and came up to the pulpit to 
speak. At that point, another group of homosexuals went around to the 
other side of the sanctuary where there were large double doors, and they 
began pounding loudly on the doors. It sounded as if they were using 
battering rams to break down the doors. All this was recorded on the tape of 
the evening service. 

I realized at that point that if those doors were broken down, there was 
only one object of their wrath, and that was me. So I stepped down from the 
pulpit, found a telephone, and called 911. When the dispatcher answered, I 
was told that they had already sent four or five policemen to the church. To 
which I said, "Ma'am, you'd better send the riot squad, or the blood may 
flow all the way down to city hall!" At that, they finally did send the riot 
squad, and those officers were successful in removing the homosexuals and 
pushing them back to the sidewalks. Unfortunately, they did not stop them 
from yelling profanities and chanting threats at us. 

They continued haranguing us with the most vulgar words they could 


think of, which is also against a California ordinance that says protesters 
may not come within five hundred feet of a church to disturb a worship 
service in that manner. (In fact, this is legislation that I had prevented the 
legislature from repealing several years earlier.) Somehow we managed to 
finish the service, at which point the police dismissed our people in three 
groups and escorted each of them out by different ways to their cars. Beverly 
and I were the last to leave. 

The homosexuals were still there, but the police had put up their plastic 
shields and created a walkway for us to pass through, and they helped us 
into a waiting van. There were police posted on the rooftops around the 
church, and a police helicopter hovering overhead to make sure that things 
didn't get completely out of control. They drove us to the Oakland Airport, 
and we flew out later that night. But that was just the beginning of what 
would soon become a media sensation. 

Fortunately, the recording system in the church was running the whole 
time, and all those sounds and conversations had been captured in real time. 
When he realized what was on that tape. Dr. Innes sent a copy of the service 
to Dr. James Dobson, who played it on his national radio program Focus on 
the Family, which reaches more than six million listeners on fifteen hundred 
stations coast to coast, five days a week. On the morning that tape was 
broadcast, I got a call from my daughter, Andrea Lafferty, telling me that she 
woke up to the sound of that pounding on the church doors in San 
Francisco. Her radio alarm was set to go off when the Dobson program came 
on, and when she heard my name, she told me later, she was surprised and 
frightened. I assured Andrea that I was OK, but it had been a frightening 
experience for all of us. If there was any question that we were engaged in 
spiritual warfare, this was the proof. 

Six weeks later when Dr. Innes called for a religious liberty rally at 
Hamilton Square Church, about four hundred fifty ministers from all across 
the country showed up. I came for the service, which was held on a 
weekday, and afterward we all walked down to city hall together. We 
wanted to address the city council, but this time we weren't taking any 
chances. A dear friend from the Oakland Christian Center was able to bring 
with him all the men from his rehabilitation program, most of whom were in 
treatment for drug or alcohol addiction, and I can tell you those guys were 
physically fit! 

When we left the church, they created a wall around us, and we walked 
the seven blocks to city hall. No one touched us on the way. The 
homosexuals weren't at the church that day, but they showed up at city hall 
and blocked the front doors. But suddenly those strong men who had come 
with us just lifted me up by the elbows and bounded up the stairs two at a 
time, right to the front door. When they saw us coming, believe me, the 
homosexuals turned on their heels and ran. 

Later, the local homosexual newspaper said we had cast an evil spell on 


the people at the door, and I had to laugh. The prophet Isaiah says, "Woe to 
those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20, NKJV), and that's just 
what they were doing. To them, our efforts to do good could only be seen as 
evil. But we knew God was at work that day, and He still is. 

When we got inside the building, we went up to the second floor where 
the board of supervisors holds their meetings, and the homosexuals had 
already taken most of the seats. After I had testified about what happened 
that day, I walked back to my seat and thought. The roof must be leaking. 
But when I looked around, there was this huge homosexual man-he must 
have weighed 350 pounds-who had brought a cup full of water with him, 
and he was spitting at me. 

The instant they saw what was happening, the bodyguards who came with 
us grabbed that big man and flipped him flat on his back. Then they called 
for police assistance. The room was already lined with police officers who 
had seen what happened, so they grabbed the big homosexual and arrested 
him. The headline in the San Francisco paper the next day was, 
"Homosexuals Clash With Christians, and Lose" That was quite an article! 

The lesson here is that once you decide you're going to come against evil, 
you have to be sure you have the depth of commitment to stay with it. So 
many people I've known over the years have started in this battle and quit. It 
can really get hot in the kitchen when you're fighting for something this 
important, so you have to have the moral courage to stand your ground. You 
must be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are coming 
against evil and that it must be stopped. 

Civilized societies are those that uphold law and order, that have high 
standards of personal and religious liberty, and that establish a moral 
framework allowing families to survive and prosper. Until recently, that 
would have been a fitting description of American society and the American 
form of justice, but as antireligious bigotry and politically correct ideologies 
have begun to spread through many places in our culture, we find ourselves 
at risk as never before, and often at war with those who hate our values. 

The only way to win that war is to stand our ground and stand up for 
what we believe. We ought to rely on law and order to support and defend 
us wherever possible, but in the final analysis our best hope is to place our 
trust in the One who alone is beyond law and order. 




The homosexual rights movement is like a runaway train racing 
down a mountain pass.... If you listen closely, you can hear the 
train approaching.... More quietly, the homosexual cultural 
revolution has invaded our workplaces as one company after 
another adapts to the changing culture.... Because the policies of 
Fortune 500 companies invariably "trickle down" to smaller 
businesses, the societal effect of changes in the workplace can be 


AN AMENDMENT TO the Illinois Human Rights Act, which deals with 
"antidiscrimination protection on the basis of sexual orientation;" was 
pushed through the state legislature in January 2005 by the state chapter of 
the American Civil Liberties Union. The measure, signed into law by the 
recently elected Illinois governor. Rod Blagojevich, makes no exception for 
churches or other organizations that subscribe to traditional biblical 
teaching about sodomy, adultery, incest, homosexuality, and other kinds of 
sexual sin. The language of the statute, in fact, makes it clear that the bill's 
authors fully intended for there to be no limits and no exceptions in the 
application of the new law. 

The amendment had been stalled in the general assembly for years until it 
became the centerpiece of a major push by the ACLU in 2004. According to 
their annual report, the director of the ACLU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, 
Transgendered Rights Project, John Knight, worked with ACLU legislative 
director Mary Dixon to promote the idea to the legislature. Thanks to their 
pressure tactics, the bill passed the assembly with the votes of 98 of the 115 
House Democrats, 11 House Republicans, 1 House Independent, and 3 
Senate Republicans. 

Predictably, however, passage of the bill created immediate controversy 
among church leaders and others concerned about the impact this 
legislation would have on traditional family values. The Illinois Family 
Institute, a nonprofit group affiliated with Focus on the Family, was joined 
by representatives from the Family Research Council and the Alliance 
Defense Fund in making their strong opposition to the governor's actions 



The measure, they pointed out, adds sexual orientation to a state law that 
prohibits discrimination based on such things as race, religion, and national 
origin. Citizens already have equal opportunity guarantees for housing and 
jobs, but the governor was unfazed by arguments from the opposition. In his 
statement to the media, Blagojevich said that, "What we're doing today is 
older than Scripture: Love thy neighbor. It's what Jesus said when he gave 
his Sermon on the Mount: ' Do unto others what you would have others do 
unto you."" 

To date, Illinois is the fifteenth state to prohibit discrimination based on 
sexual orientation. But the director of the Illinois Family Institute, Peter 
LaBarbera, cited the words of the principal sponsor of the legislation, State 
Senator Carol Ronen of Chicago, who insisted the law be applied universally, 
meaning that churches and religious organizations would not be allowed to 
reject homosexual or lesbian job applicants on the basis of their sexual 
orientation. "If that is their goal, to discriminate against gay people," Ronen 
said, "this law wouldn't allow them to do that. But I don't believe that's 
what the Catholic Church wants or stands for." 

Apparently, as LaBarbera suggests, the Illinois legislature and Gov. 
Blagojevich must believe that "gay rights are more important than religious 
freedoms." They have certainly shown no respect for the values of the 
majority of Illinois citizens who are religious. There's reason to hope that the 
bill, passed on the last day of a lame-duck session after an all-out blitz by the 
ACLU and the state's most vocal homosexual lobby. Equality Illinois, may be 
overturned by the courts. But that may also be wishful thinking, considering 
that the direction of the courts in that state (as elsewhere) has been mostly 
in the opposite direction for some time. 


Fewer than 2 percent of the population of the United States is actively 
homosexual, yet no other group exerts such enormous pressure or wields 
such power over the nation's cultural institutions. Homosexuals know this. 
That has been their stated goal since the 1970s, and they want to use that 
power to coerce the federal government, state legislatures, and the courts at 
all levels into passing and prosecuting laws that give special rights to same- 
sex couples and others in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
community. While they preach tolerance, they are all for laws that punish 
those who oppose the homosexual agenda. 

As we saw in the last chapter, a critical front in the homosexual assault on 
moral judgment is the effort to pass hate crimes legislation, which includes 
antidiscrimination laws that grant protected status to homosexuals and give 
them legal and moral equivalence with racial and ethnic minorities. This is a 


fraud. Nevertheless, for years homosexual advocates in Congress have been 
trying to ram a bill through the Senate-the Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act (ENDA) -that would not only make "sexual orientation" a federally 
protected civil right but would also punish any person in a workplace 
environment who interferes with a homosexual man or lesbian on the job. 
Such laws could also force churches to hire homosexual applicants and 
punish employees who share their faith at the workplace. 

The problems with such laws are too numerous to mention, but so far this 
one has never survived a floor vote in either house, and for good reason. 
Despite warnings from all segments of the population, a Senate committee 
did pass the bill for consideration by the full Senate, but that's as far as it 
went. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed. As my friend Connie Mackey, vice 
president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, pointed out 
at the time, "ENDA will require Americans to hire people they believe to be 
committing immoral acts, precisely because they commit those acts." And 
that's not only unreasonable but absurd. 

But absurdity has never stopped the Left from trying to push bad bills or 
to come back time and time again to the same old issues hoping that the 
constituency may change or that social concerns may have shifted. Like the 
hate crimes legislation that Senator Ted Kennedy has tried unsuccessfully to 
force through the Senate since 1997, the Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act was reintroduced in the House of Representatives in October 2003, with 
sponsorship of Congressmen Chris Shays of Connecticut and Barney Frank of 

With only minor changes in the wording, the revised bill attempts to 
legislate special rights for homosexuals, transgenders, cross-dressers, and 
others. In doing so, the bill returns to the same faulty premise of its 
predecessors, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. And it 
attempts to give unnatural sexual behaviors a stature equivalent to that 
already granted by law to legitimate minorities. 

A survey conducted within the homosexual community revealed that, as 
far back as the mid-1990s, the annual income of homosexual households 
was as much as 41 percent higher than the national average. In addition, 
nearly half of all homosexual households included individuals employed in a 
professional-level or managerial job. Business Week magazine reported 
further that homosexuals are five times more likely than the average 
American to earn salaries higher than $100,000 a year. So where exactly is 
the workplace discrimination? 

A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 1996 
found that 43 percent of companies currently offering domestic partner 
benefits offer those benefits to both opposite-sex and samesex couples. They 
found that just 26 percent provide health benefits only for opposite-sex 
couples, and another 21 percent offer benefits only to same-sex couples. All 


of which says that the battle for nondiscrimination measures is almost 
entirely cosmetic, an attempt to keep homosexual issues in the media and in 
the mind of the public. Why? To grind down resistance and to inculcate the 
notion that homosexuality is a protected behavior that must be 
acknowledged and accepted by all people. 


There's no question that the attempt to push ENDA and similar legislation 
through the Congress is a clever political strategy. No one wants to be 
accused of bigotry or discrimination. But the tactics used by homosexuals to 
try and enforce widespread acceptance of their lifestyle are misleading and 
deceptive. In an insightful discussion of this issue in Touchstone magazine, 
Mark Tooley, a research associate with the Institute on Religion and 
Democracy, points out that ENDA and similar legislative initiatives really 
have little to do with any legitimate concerns about workplace 
discrimination. Rather, he says, they're part of a massive public relations 
campaign to change the way we think. Tooley writes: 

Outside of the military and the Church, where do homosexuals 
typically face workplace barriers? Market surveys show that 
homosexuals, on average, have higher incomes than the average 
household. The real objective of "equal rights" legislation for 
homosexuals is to overthrow our society's few remaining barriers 
to full acceptance of homosexual behavior and other non- 
traditional sexual practices. 

No civilized society has ever considered the manner in which people 
engage in sex to be a "lifestyle" True, human sexuality involves powerful 
emotions and sensibilities, and the sexual choices we make can have serious 
and long-term consequences. But as Mark Tooley points out, "History shows 
that full sexual liberation, shorn of all taboos, leads not to freedom but 
anarchy." And he pointedly adds, "A national policy that treats sexual 
practice as no different from ethnic identity would emasculate traditional 
moral restraints regarding sexuality." ENDA in this light is less a measure for 
protecting homosexuals than a pretext for persecuting and punishing those 
who resist homosexual indoctrination. 

Using the law to force Americans to accept homosexual behavior may be 
the goal of the homosexual lobby, but no amount of pressure can force 
people to change their thinking in such a radical way. And no amount of 
legislation will ever give homosexuality the status of a "right" with the full 
magnitude of our First Amendment rights. Freedom of religion, free speech, 
freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly are all rights woven into the 
national fabric. They are part of the emotional apparatus of every American. 

The Founding Fathers made it clear that those "rights" are granted by God 


Himself, and they may not be reinvented, redefined, or undermined by any 
person or movement, no matter how determined or how well financed they 
may be. John Kennedy paraphrased this idea very well in his inaugural 
address when he said that "the rights of man come not from the generosity 
of the state, but from the hand of God." That's what most Americans 

Gay rights activists, however, have been pushing to get sexual orientation 
added to civil rights laws for at least three decades. The Civil Rights Act of 
1964 made discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national 
origin a federal offense. Since that time, homosexual activists have tried to 
force state and federal lawmakers to amend the list by adding "sexual 
orientation" as a protected category. So far they've failed at every outing, 
which is not to say that the pressure will not continue or that the political 
climate may not change. But anyone not driven by an agenda can see the 
differences, and that's why perceptive legislators continue to resist. 

An effort to legislate homosexuality as a civil right protected by 
nondiscrimination laws was presented to the New York City Council in 
1972. The measure was voted down, but had it passed, it would have been 
the first time any city had created such a right. As it turned out, the first city 
to pass a nondiscrimination policy for homosexuals was East Lansing, 
Michigan, later that same year. San Francisco was the second city to pass 
such a bill, and the effort to extend civil rights protections on the basis of 
sexual orientation was first introduced in Congress by Representative Bella 
Abzug of New York. That bill, introduced as the Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights 
Bill in 1974, was wisely rejected by Congress, but there has been a steady 
stream of similar proposals ever since. 


When reporters for World magazine interviewed spokesmen of most of the 
twenty-eight Fortune 500 companies that had been identified by the 
homosexual lobbying group the Human Rights Campaign as having 
established benefits for domestic partners, they were surprised at how 
common such policies had become. What they discovered was that most of 
them had only adopted the policies in the previous two or three years, which 
was an indication of growing pressure and the momentum behind the 
domestic-partner bandwagon. 

Two-thirds of the companies with programs already in place were located 
in California and New York, where there's a large concentration of high-tech, 
media, and entertainment firms. About half of those interviewed provided 
domestic-partner benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners. All 
but one of the rest offered the benefits to same-sex couples only. 

Companies typically based eligibility on a signed affidavit that included 


terms such as "committed relationship;" "common residency," and "financial 
interdependence" Because such terms could apply equally to an employee 
and a parent, brother, or sister, some stipulated that the partner must be in a 
"spouse-like relationship;" or that they could not be closely related to the 
employee. World's editors noted that while this language may have limited 
the company's financial liability, it made it hard for them to deny that they 
were, in fact, promoting sexual sin. 

Two of the firms surveyed by the writers tried to sidestep that issue. 
Principal Financial Group, based in Des Moines, Iowa, referred to their 
domestic-partner policy as a "non-traditional adult dependent" policy 
because it included elderly parents and other dependents living in the same 
household. Xerox simply gave their employees money to purchase health 
insurance for household members not generally eligible for coverage under 
their plan. 

Despite the claims of homosexual activists that gays and lesbians make up 
10 percent of the population, and despite their insisting that large numbers 
of workers were clamoring for domestic -partner benefits, virtually all the 
human resources personnel interviewed by World's reporters said that no 
more than 1 percent of the workforce actually signed up for those benefits. 
Speaking of the homosexual employee group GALAXE, Xerox's Brent Laymon 
said, "Their primary motive seems to be recognition rather than a need for 
medical benefits" 

According to the Society for Human Resource Management, the three 
primary reasons given for not offering domestic -partner benefits were: 

1. No interest from employees, 56 percent 

2. Concern that heath-care costs would increase, 30 percent 

3. Moral objections, 21 percent 

Most spokesmen downplayed any hint of controversy associated with the 
company's decision to implement domestic -partner benefits. Joe Fuentes, of 
the Adolph Coors Company, said, "We had maybe six to ten calls from 
protesting employees" And he added that a Topeka, Kansas, minister showed 
up for a one-day picket with about six others and then left. Walt Disney's 
spokesman refused to talk about boycotts by Southern Baptists and the 
American Family Association. And after asking reporters about World's 
editorial policies and readership, the Disney executive quickly ended the 

Many respondents, the reporters noted, seemed to be reading from the 
same talking points when explaining why their companies instituted 
domestic-partner policies. The response used by the representative for St. 
Paul Companies was typical: "This policy is consistent with our 
management's corporate diversity objectives which are to foster an 


environment that sustains a committed adaptable work force wherein 
everyone contributes to their fullest" Words like "inclusion;" "diversity;" 
"fairness;" and "nondiscrimination" were used, along with the claim that the 
policy was needed in order for the company to remain competitive. 


Thanks to the constant trumpeting of homosexual activism by the 
mainstream media, there's not much in such stories that is truly surprising. 
But perhaps the most revealing finding of these interviews, as World's 
editors reported, was the four-step process by which each of these 
companies had been persuaded to embrace policies that would have been 
unthinkable only a few years earlier. 

First, advocates within the company would put together a core group of 
homosexual and gay-friendly employees with the aim of gaining official 
recognition from management for their group. It's worth pointing out that a 
similar approach had been used by civil rights activists in the seventies and 
eighties. World's reporters found that groups such as the Human Rights 
Campaign made themselves available to provide tactical training for scores 
of these mobilization groups, which also helps to explain the similarities in 
their approach. 

Second, the groups would petition management to include sexual 
orientation in corporate nondiscrimination policies. Once that goal had been 
achieved, it was deemed unreasonable for management to resist granting 
domestic-partner benefits because of moral concerns. If managers were slow 
to comply, the homosexual employees would say that it was a matter of 
"fairness" How successful were they? According to figures from the Human 
Rights Campaign, more than half of all Fortune 500 companies have adopted 
sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies, along with 165 cities and 
counties, 67 of the 100 largest law firms, and 64 United States senators- 
including 23 Republicans. 

The third step in the employees' plan was for the special-interest groups 
to begin conditioning fellow employees through sensitivitytraining sessions. 
If the environment in the workplace was not already gay-friendly, these 
groups would try other tactics, such as linking homosexual issues to those of 
women and racial minorities in the workplace. By adding sexual orientation 
and nondiscrimination language to the corporate policy, it was then a simple 
matter of insisting on company-sponsored events such as "diversity training" 
or "sensitivity training;" which would be mandatory, of course, for all 

The last step, then, was to implement domestic-partner policies step-by- 
step. Frequently implementation occurred in increments beginning with 
minor non-health benefits. The benefits director at Pacific Gas and Electric 


told World that his company only extended domestic -partner benefits to 
those requesting bereavement leave. But, as it happened, they were 
considering adding a broader range of benefits. 

Careful, methodical, and stressing always the issue of "fairness;" the deed 
was accomplished. On company time, homosexual workers had to rely on 
the power of persuasion to accomplish their goals. But it doesn't have to be 
that way. In fact, if the Human Rights Campaign and other lobbying groups 
have their way, nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation will 
be the law of the land. ENDA, which would do just that, came within a 
single vote of passing the Republican Senate in 1996. And it has been 
brought back in both houses of Congress every eighteen months since that 
time, and you can be sure that, one way or the other, it will come back 
again. And you might want to know how your representatives will vote. 

If the law is modified to grant homosexuals the status of a protected 
victim group, you can be certain that companies without domesticpartner 
policies will find themselves in the minority, and many will become targets 
of threats and intimidation by the homosexual lobby. Not long ago, 
homosexual activists claimed that what goes on behind closed doors 
between consenting adults was nobody's business. Today, as World 
magazine's editors and writers discovered, sexual behavior is becoming 
everybody's business. 


What you must understand is that the effort to legislate special rights for 
homosexuals and lesbians has nothing to do with protecting homosexuals in 
the workplace. Homosexuals are already protected by law, just like everyone 
else. The push for special rights legislation is, in reality, nothing more than 
an effort to legitimize and respectabilize (to use Gershon Legman's word) the 
homosexual lifestyle. But doing that would change the nature of both civil 
rights and natural rights, placing homosexuals into a class of their own, 
which is why we must resist any attempt by government to pass legislation 
of this type. Rewarding people with rights on the basis of unnatural sexual 
practices would make a mockery of law and justice. 

Wherever governments, corporations, or municipalities have enacted 
measures that grant special rights to homosexuals, those who hold to 
traditional moral values and Christian beliefs have been subjected to 
discrimination, physical and emotional abuse, fines, sensitivity training, and 
in some cases even imprisonment. Make no mistake, civil rights for 
homosexuals is a one-way street: freedom for me but not for thee. And when 
homosexuality is promoted by society, Christians and other moral 
conservatives will no longer be able to express their beliefs in public. If that 
day ever comes, no American will be safe, at home or in the workplace. 


The story of Richard Peterson, an employee of Hewlett-Packard who 
worked in the company's facility in Boise, Idaho, offers an interesting 
perspective on these issues. During his twenty-one-year career with HP, 
Peterson, like other employees, was occasionally required to attend classes 
on providing a gay-friendly work environment. He was expected to read 
notices on the company bulletin board about homosexual events and 
conferences and to be sensitive to homosexuals and the way they were 
treated in the workplace. 

Peterson, a conservative Christian, resented those things, as he had every 
right to do. He believed they were a violation of his conscience, his free 
speech, and his values, so he resisted the indoctrination and eventually 
decided to find out just how "open-minded" HP's diversity policies really 
were-he posted some of his own signs inside his office cubicle. The 
messages were large enough for passersby to read and featured pictures of 
various HP employees with captions such as "Black;" "Blonde," "Old;" "Gay;" 
or "Hispanic;" along with the company's own slogan, "Diversity Is Our 
Strength" In addition, he posted two large signs with Bible verses about the 
sin of homosexuality on the bins above his desk. Needless to say, some 
people at HP were less than tolerant of Rich Peterson's freedom of speech. 

One of the Bible verses he had posted on his wall was Leviticus 20:13: "If 
a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have 
committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood 
shall be put upon them" When confronted by human resources personnel 
about the signs, Peterson reminded them of their own policies regarding 
freedom of speech and religion, and he said that it was his religious duty "to 
expose evil when confronted with sin" If HP was serious about workplace 
diversity, he said, then he ought to be free to express his views without fear 
of censorship. 

The managers set up a counseling session in which they advised Peterson 
that his posters violated the company's policy barring "comments or conduct 
relating to a person's race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual 
orientation, or ethnic background that fail to respect the dignity and feeling 
of the individual" But Peterson refused to take down the signs, so the 
company fired him. At that point, Peterson filed a lawsuit, claiming religious 
discrimination, but he lost his case in the first round. At that point he 
pursued the case to the next level, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San 

When the appeals court ruling was handed down in January 2004, Judge 
Stephen Reinhardt-whose name surfaced recently when he and two other 
9th Circuit judges ruled the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional- 
agreed with the decision of the Idaho court in denying Peterson's claim of 
religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Peterson conceded that the messages he had posted in his cubicle were 
intended to embarrass and shame Hewlett-Packard's homosexual employees. 


The aim, he said, was to encourage them to admit their sin, to repent, and to 
come to Christ. Judge Reinhardt said that violated company policy, and he 
ruled accordingly. 

Reinhardt noted that Peterson's employers had not objected to a letter to 
the editor Peterson had written to the Idaho Statesman, in which he called 
the diversity campaign a "platform to promote the homosexual agenda" Nor 
did they attempt to prevent him from parking in the company lot, even 
though his car bore a sticker that said, "Sodomy Is Not a Family Value" But 
Reinhardt said the company had a right to fire Peterson because he had 
created "a hostile and intolerant work environment" and because he was 
insubordinate to his superiors. 

Boise lawyer Chris Troupis, who argued Peterson's case on appeal, 
admitted that the court's ruling came as no surprise. But he said, "The court 
was extremely hostile to our position on freedom of expression in the 
workplace" And he added further, "They were either saying that the words 
used in the Bible alone are offensive and hurtful and therefore prohibited, or 
that his thoughts were offensive and hurtful, and therefore prohibited. 
They're either the thought police or they're prohibiting any religious 
expression whatsoever in the workplace." 

And maybe that's really the point. In today's multicultural workplace, the 
one thing you cannot do is to express strong Christian beliefs or resist the 
indoctrination of employees on the basis of your religious faith. As 
numerous reports in periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal, Business 
Week, Forbes, and others have revealed, the effort to indoctrinate employees 
with attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of "homosexual rights" is now 
a fact of corporate life. And insisting on traditional values and biblical 
beliefs is less and less a protected right. 

The rapid pace of implementing changes in the workplace was set back in 
the mid-nineties when corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, Apple 
Computers, Hewlett-Packard, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, the New York Times, 
Time Warner, the Walt Disney companies, and others bought into the whole 
range of gay-friendly policies for their employees. Today there's almost no 
sanctuary for those who resist these policies. Thousands of firms are now 
following guidelines designed by homosexuals and mandated by state and 
local laws to enforce "tolerance" and "diversity" for gays while restricting 
the free expression of religious and moral beliefs. 


As an example of just how imperious these laws can be, the Illinois House of 
Representatives passed a bill in January 2005 banning discrimination against 
homosexuals and transgender people in the workplace. In announcing the 
new statute. Governor Rod Blagojevich said, "The legislation sends a clear 


message that we will not allow our citizens to be discriminated against." 
Homosexual advocacy groups immediately praised the governor and the 
legislature for the bill's passage, while opponents said the new law would 
trample on the freedoms of other people-especially people of faith who 
oppose homosexuality and "gender confusion" 

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, pointed 
out that the new legislation actually amounted to a green light for promoting 
the homosexual agenda in Illinois. The bill's religious exemption is "so big;" 
he told reporters, "you could drive a semi through it." Furthermore, he said, 
the bill "sets a dangerous precedent by creating civil rights based on 
homosexual and transgender behavior." 

By adding sexual orientation to that state's existing nondiscrimination 
laws, LaBarbera said, the new bill would lead inevitably to more legal action 
against churches and groups such as the Boy Scouts that oppose 

Very soon the law would require that the state create special legal 
protections for cross-dressers and transsexuals, since the definition of 
"sexual orientation" included in the bill also guarantees protection for 
"gender-related identity," meaning dressing and behaving like someone of 
the opposite sex. On such grounds, liberal judges would be able to enforce 
legalization of "same-sex marriage" and "civil unions," as happened in 
Massachusetts. Furthermore, the new law would mean that homosexual 
indoctrination in the public schools could proceed without restriction, and 
there would afterward be no way to defend churches and other religious 
organizations from litigation by homosexuals claiming employment 

Predictably, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was elated by the 
governor's announcement. The group's executive director. Matt Foreman, 
said, "This win again shows that dogged work by state and local leaders and 
activists can surmount enormous odds-and is real salve to a community still 
hurting from the results of November 2" The reelection of President Bush 
and an expanded majority in both houses of Congress was seen as a setback 
for the homosexual lobby. But Foreman and friends recognized the new law 
in Illinois as "a major advancement for transgender people, both in Illinois 
and countrywide" Illinois now joins fourteen other states with laws 
purporting to ban "discrimination against homosexuals." 

But who really makes policy, and what assurances do we have that our 
elected officials will actually support and defend the values of the people 
who elected them? The Bush White House, in early 2005, affirmed a policy 
established by the Clinton administration that included "sexual orientation" 
as a protected minority class for federal employees. The head of the Office 
of Special Counsel in the White House, Scott Bloch, was attacked by 
homosexual rights groups for his decision to reverse the Clinton policy. He 


told reporters that it would be illegal to make sexual orientation a protected 
class since it's not part of any civil rights law. Furthermore, the measure had 
been imposed by members of the Clinton team primarily to curry favor with 
homosexual activist organizations and the well-financed gay lobby in 

Bloch said and did the right things, but his efforts to reverse an unlawful 
policy were rebuked on March 31, 2004, by White House spokesman Ken 
Lisaius, who told reporters, "President Bush expects federal agencies to 
enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected 
from unfair discrimination at work" In other words, faced by strong external 
pressure from a loud and aggressive homosexual constituency, and their 
advocates in the media, the White House backed down and left a bad law on 
the books. 

If there was ever an argument for Christians to stand up and speak out, 
this is it. Even with a Christian chief executive and a strongly conservative 
majority in the seat of power, many times public policy is made by those 
who have the biggest megaphone. So far, the homosexual lobby has been 
very successful at brow-beating and intimidating our leaders, and more than 
once we have seen the White House cave in to the pressure. And that's why 
we need to mobilize our people, who have a majority vastly larger than the 
opposition, to speak out on issues of great concern. That's why I established 
the Traditional Values Coalition twenty-five years ago, to help mobilize and 
inform that powerful constituency. 

For secular society, these issues are purely pragmatic, and they will 
almost always tend to take the course of least resistance when confronted 
with two difficult options. The louder and more offensive the homosexual 
lobby, the easier it is for them to push unprincipled employers and managers 
over the edge to accept whatever measures the homosexuals want them to 
accept. According to a recent report in the magazine Workforce 
Management, the transformation of corporate America into a gay-friendly 
culture is now perceived by many of these people as just another step 
toward greater peace and harmony in the workplace. They write that: 

Gradually, workforce policies are treating sexual orientation on 
par with other dimensions of diversity, such as race. Some 
companies embrace gay training because of philosophical beliefs 
in equality. Others see it as a way to foster teamwork, enhance 
productivity or woo gay consumers. The 15 million gay men and 
lesbians in the United States comprise a $583 billion market, 
according to consumer-market researcher Packaged Facts and 
marketing firm Witeck-Combs Com- munications. 



If money is your God, and if you recognize no higher moral authority than 
satisfying your own interests and needs, then what's to prevent you from 
following the path of least resistance? Businesses that value profits more 
than moral balance will naturally gravitate toward policies that fill their 
coffers. The problem, as I've tried to show throughout these pages, is that 
there's a lot more to it than that. In the first place, the homosexual lifestyle 
is no respecter of persons. It will destroy anyone who dabbles in it or who 
tries to coexist amicably with it. 

This "deathstyle" is not the way God's created order was designed to 
work. But, beyond the political concerns and the purely functional aspects 
of the agenda, we have also been taught by Scripture, by tradition, and by 
two thousand years of Judeo-Christian civilization that indulgence in sexual 
sin will devastate any nation. Nothing could be clearer. And to defy the will 
of God by casual compromise with a lifestyle that is contrary not only to 
theology but also to common sense is a deadly proposition, indeed. And this 
is my ultimate concern. 

In a profound and comprehensive volume called The Bible and 
Homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon examines in amazing depth the 
record of biblical scholarship on this issue. In that work he reviews the 
entire span of exegetical literature, including hundreds of texts and related 
documents that focus on society's understanding of human sexuality, and he 
offers a clear and compelling case for the sanctity of marriage, as a union 
between one man and one woman, and the importance of preserving our 
understanding of and obedience to God's created order. 

In an interview with the editors of a theological Web site, posted on the 
Internet, Gagnon reviewed his analysis of these issues, with an insightful 
assessment of society's predicament at this hour. His comments, drawing on 
his scholarly research and the lessons from both history and tradition 
regarding sexuality and social mores, are powerful and precise. What sort of 
future does the scholar see for America if the homosexual agenda continues 
on its current pace? He says: 

For the macro-culture generally, approval of homosexual behavior 
will all but annihilate societal gender norms of any sort, 
promoting the normalization of the most bizarre elements of the 
homosexual movement-transsexualism, transvestism-thereby 
increasing gender identity confusion among the young. Indeed, we 
can expect a lessening of aversion to various sexual relationships 
hitherto regarded as sexual perversions-for example, "threesomes;" 
"open" committed relationships, adult-adolescent sexual relations, 
and consensual adult sex between close blood relations-owing to a 
complete abandonment of single divinely-sanctioned, nature- 
imbedded model for acceptable sexual expression. 

In short, unless we come to terms with the devastation created by illicit 


sexual behaviors, or unless the AIDS pandemic forces society to stop and 
reevaluate the consequences of this "lifestyle;" things can only get worse. 
The home, the school, the workplace, our churches: nothing will be sacred. 
Nowhere will be safe. And a proliferation of obscene images will sweep like 
a tidal wave over our culture-at which point only God in His mercy can save 

One of the early documents of the homosexual movement was a 
publication called "Waging Peace;" which illustrates the subversive nature of 
the homosexual agenda. Like many of the articles, tracts, and booklets 
published in the mid-1980s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, this one, 
distributed under the banner of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 
focused on the need to hide what homosexuality is actually about in order 
to gain converts by repetition, desensitization, and deception. In this 
document, the authors say: 

The first order of business is the desensitization of the American 
public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is 
to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with 
keen emotion. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you 
are exposed to enough of it. The way to benumb raw sensitivities 
about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal 
about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Constant talk 
builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the 
subject and that a sizeable segment accepts or even practices 

This is still going on. The wealth and social privilege enjoyed by 
homosexuals make them anything but victims. And laws to enforce benefits 
and full acceptance of homosexuals in the workplace are merely tactics 
designed to shove the "gay lifestyle" in our faces. Homosexuals are, as one 
analyst has phrased it, "prime players in a capitalistic society" Wealth brings 
power, and their higher levels of education means that many homosexuals 
have knowledge, access, and power to gain an ever-greater share of society's 


Thanks to the glorification of homosexuality by Hollywood, television, and 
the news media, homosexuals have unprecedented access to power at all 
levels. But even as the campaign of deception tries to spread the message 
that homosexuals are "just like you and me;" reality paints a very different 
picture. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the National Institute of Mental Health show that men and women in the 
homosexual community have: 

■ Higher rates of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance 


abuse among homosexual and lesbian youths 

■ Higher rates of recurrent major depression among homosexual men 

■ Higher rates of anxiety, mood disorders, and substance abuse among 
people ages fifteen to fifty-four with samesex partners 

■ Higher use of mental health services in men and women with same-sex 

Despite the massive education campaign to inform men and women in 
that community about the need for "safer sex," and despite years of research 
regarding the deadly consequences of HIV, AIDS, bacterial infections, 
cancers, and all the major diseases and STDs associated primarily with the 
homosexual lifestyle, there is no evidence of change. 

A 1999 study found that the primary reason for unsafe sex among 
homosexuals was "poor intentions to use [condoms] and poor norms [in 
insisting upon the use of condoms] " 

Only drug abusers have a comparable risk of developing HIV and AIDS, yet 
these high-risk practices continue unabated. How successful have all the 
educational programs in the schools and the workplace been in alerting 
people to the risk of contracting serious illnesses through high-risk 
homosexual practices? Government statistics report that today more people 
are engaging in more dangerous sexual activities, and at younger ages, than 
ever before. 

Images disseminated by the media, the education establishment, big 
government, and the courts, pandering to the homosexual movement, are 
changing the American culture in shocking ways. We are never exposed to 
scenes of emaciated young men in darkened wards dying of AIDS and 
colorectal cancers. We don't see images of drugaddicted teenagers on life 
support who have destroyed themselves by experimenting with the "gay 
lifestyle" Instead, we see what Hollywood wants us to see: movie stars, 
celebrities, and glittering socialites who embrace the agenda and vilify 
anyone who dares to say that all is not as it seems. 

Free speech in many places is now "hate speech" The universities are 
centers of intolerance and indoctrination, and the workplace is in danger of 
becoming a truth-free zone. Gay rights, in the end, turns out to be about 
power. It's a battle that's being waged in the media marketplace by clever 
marketing and indoctrination. There's a price to pay for standing up for 
what's right, as we have seen over and over again in these pages. Those who 
resist maybe persecuted. They maybe hounded in the workplace while 
homosexuals and lesbians are given the red carpet treatment. They may be 
fired for expressing their views and refusing to participate in diversity 
training. But the price for compromise is so much greater. 


Deb Price, a lesbian columnist and activist, speaks for many in that 
movement who feel that religious convictions and biblical standards are 
meaningless. Arguing against the Religious Liberty Protection Act passed by 
Congress in 1999, Price said that: "Religion should not be treated as a 'Get 
Out of Jail Free' card that lets people pick and choose which laws to obey." 

Activists like Deb Price believe faith is irrelevant. Constitutional guarantees 
of religious freedom may be ignored, she says, if religious beliefs conflict 
with the homosexual agenda. And I'm sorry to say, she's not alone. Price's 
view is shared by an ever-growing segment of the population, including 
many of your representatives in Congress. 

Even California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, seems to 
agree. In an interview on ABC TV, he said that "religion should have no 
effect on politics" This is completely puzzling to me, especially from a man 
who has indicated his interest in running for president one day. How can 
anyone, especially government leaders, make decisions when they have no 
foundation of moral beliefs? After all, it was our first president, George 
Washington, who said in his farewell: "Of all the dispositions and habits, 
which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable 
supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who 
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest 
props of the duties of men and citizens" 

President Ronald Reagan once posed an important question to a group of 
dignitaries attending an ecumenical prayer breakfast near the end of his first 
term. He said, "The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion 
claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open- 
mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of 
religion? That they refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives?" 

That's an important question, and we're still waiting for the answer. Until 
those who are promoting nondiscrimination policies in the workplace (and 
elsewhere in American society) come to grips with the true meaning of 
"freedom and justice for all;" there can be no justice at all. And that's why 
we fight. 




The homosexual movement is really an outgrowth of... the broader 
humanistic revolution that has swept this country to the point that 
people cannot say anything is right or wrong; everything is geared 
toward tolerance, and there is no truth. You are allowed to look for 
it, but you can't find it because then you are narrow and bigoted. 
It's the end game of liberalism itself that says that the individual is 
the sovereign authority, not God. 


IT WAS ONLY a matter of time until the crusade to seduce morality and 
banish self-restraint in this country would invade the nation's schools. The 
architects of the homosexual campaign of deception and intimidation made 
their plans known as early as 1972. Item number six of the now infamous 
"gay rights" platform that year called for, "Federal encouragement and 
support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and 
men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as 
a viable alternative to heterosexuality." 

When I first read that, I thought. They want what? The very idea is 
preposterous! Homosexuals, who have made a religion of practices banned 
by every great society known to man ... who have a life expectancy barely 
half that of the average heterosexual ... who contract and propagate 
contagions that have devastated entire nations ... who are sexually 
immature, morally irresponsible, and emotionally unstable ... who are 
unfaithful to their partners ... who engage in aberrant sexual acts with as 
many as five hundred different partners in their attenuated lifetimes ... who 
are constantly on the prowl for erotic adventures ... who insult legitimate 
minorities by co-opting the language of civil rights ... and who disseminate 
hatred and violence in the name of tolerance and diversity... these people 
want the federal government to encourage and support the teaching of their 
lifestyle-by homosexuals no less-to America's children? Whom are they 

Yes, the idea is perverse. What kind of people would permit such a thing? 
But what is even more perverse is that, by intimidation, by persistence, and 
by the unprincipled complicity of liberal public school administrators and 


their far-left teachers unions, the gay lobby has in fact accomplished that 
goal, taking over the public schools right before our eyes. As a result, today 
government schools all across this country are being transformed into 
centers of homosexual recruitment and indoctrination. 

The same schools that have utterly failed to prepare children academically 
for life in a demanding and complex world, who rank consistently at the 
bottom in head-to-head comparisons with the schools of other industrialized 
countries, have now made homosexuality the centerpiece of their unholy 
worldview. And day by day, America's children are being brainwashed into 
wide-eyed and unquestioning acceptance of an agenda that will destroy their 
lives and threaten America's future. 


There's nothing new in the attempt to pass off an outlandish falsehood as 
absolute truth. Adolf Hitler's "big lie" was precisely that. It was an 
outrageous bluff based on a very simple proposition. If you want to make 
people believe something that is utterly false, then two things are needed: 
First, make the lie really big. Second, tell it often. The bolder and more 
audacious the lie, the more likely it will be swallowed, hook, line, and 
sinker. This is how the Nazis were able to exterminate six million Jews 
without setting off alarm bells in German society. It's how Big Brother, in 
George Orwell's classic novel 1984, was able to sell the idea that peace is 
war, ignorance is knowledge, and hate is love. And it's how the ACLU was 
able to misinterpret the First Amendment to erect a "wall of separation 
between church and state" 

The big lie of the homosexual agenda is that gay men and lesbians are just 
like everyone else, with the same hopes, dreams, and desires. This is the 
argument behind "civil unions" and "same-sex marriage" Why, homosexuals 
are just ordinary folks whose families are a little different. Except for that, 
they're just like you and me. Elementary school libraries have stacks of 
books like Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate that attempt 
to normalize homosexuality in the minds of children, to prevent them from 
seeing or knowing what's really going on in most homosexual relationships. 
And the film It's Elementary has been forced into the schools by the NEA 
and other pro-homosexual groups. The local school districts in many places 
are beginning to fight back against this forced indoctrination by the 
homosexual lobby, but there's much more to be done and the battle is far 
from over. 

If enough people actually penetrate the smokescreen of lies and deception 
that has been put up by the homosexual lobby, the big lie will be exposed, 
and their entire house of cards will come tumbling down around them. 
Believe me, moral clarity is the last thing gay activists want. And that's why 
they are so willing to fight to the death to make sure the lie is never 



By propagating disinformation and cozying up to large liberal 
constituencies, homosexuals have taken on victim status. Nearly every 
school child today is being told that churches are breeding grounds for evil. 
Boy Scouts who pledge "to be physically strong, mentally awake, and 
morally straight" are enemy number one. So is anyone who says 
homosexuality is abnormal and undesirable. Such people are labeled as 
racist, homophobic, and a danger to society. The mantra of the homosexual 
movement is that sex is for everyone, young and old, and any sort of 
restriction on experimentation is archaic and dangerous. Why, it's those 
right-wing Christians and religious extremists that you have to watch out for. 
Or so our children are being told. 

The National Education Association (NEA) publishes teachers' guides and 
fact sheets with techniques for incorporating gay and lesbian topics into 
lesson plans. One such guide includes a list of twenty recommendations for 
"Addressing the Concerns of Gays and Lesbians in Education" This and other 
publications assembled by the NEA's gay and lesbian caucus encourage 
teachers to invite lesbians and gays to visit the schools, to make sure that 
same-sex parents are included in all discussions of family, and to keep talk 
of sexuality and sexual identity open and easy for youngsters, from 
kindergarten through high school. 

In addition to the volumes of literature teachers are required to access for 
the classroom, there are hundreds of homosexual Web sites catering to 
school children, and teachers are told to encourage their students to visit 
these places. And what will they find there?, as just one example, 
is a recruiting Web site for children and teens. Resources offered on the site 
help children deal with such questions as, "I might be gay; what do I do?" 
and "Pom on the Internet and its relation to gay youth" Predictably, the 
advice they give is all in favor of experimenting with sexuality and getting rid 
of the guilt young people would naturally feel for dabbling in promiscuous 

Several publishing companies that cater exclusively to homosexuals make 
their catalogs and Internet resources available to members of the major 
teachers unions, such as the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers 
(AFT). In addition, school administrators, principals, and teachers receive 
regular mailings from many of them. Clearly, it's not just children who are 
being indoctrinated: there's a whole recmiting network for teachers and 
administrators in the schools, and books by propagandists like Kevin 
Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, to 
help formali z e the indoctrination process. I've included a brief sampling of 
some of these at the end of this chapter. 



When writer and researcher Tony Marco analyzed the scope of the 
homosexual assault on American culture, he prepared a list of six things that 
parents can expect if gay activists succeed in their quest. Here's what he 

1. Schools will be forced to hire openly homosexual teachers and teach 
children in all subject areas that homosexuality is a normal and attractive 

2. Employees will be forced to "value" homosexual behavior, or they will 
lose their jobs. 

3. College students will be forced to "value" homosexual behavior-or be 
suspended from their schools. 

4. Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals, thereby subsidizing and 
protecting behaviors that the landlords and other renters may consider 
unhealthy and perverse. 

5. Churches and religious ministries will be forced, against their strongly 
held beliefs, to hire practicing homosexuals for staff positions. Further, they 
will be threatened with criminal action and loss of their tax-exempt status 
for preaching against homosexual behavior. This, of course, is already 
happening in many places. 

6. Taxpayers and consumers will be forced to foot the bill for "spousal 
benefits" for homosexual "domestic partners"-including such things as lower 
tax rates and comprehensive insurance coverage not only for illnesses but 
for elective sex-change operations. 

Is there any doubt that all of these things are already happening? So far 
the homosexual lobby hasn't been able to enforce all their demands with the 
authority of the law behind them, but that day isn't far off if Americans 
don't wake up and take swift and appropriate action. 

To see how homosexuals respond to reasonable dissent, consider the case 
of Mrs. Janie Hill and a group of Christians in Wichita Falls, Texas, who 
addressed the city council of that city regarding the presence of books such 
as Daddy's Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies in the children's 
section of the public library. Those books, which paint a flattering picture of 
children in homosexual homes, are deceptive and disingenuous, and lead 
youngsters with no knowledge of such things to accept propositions about 
sexuality and family relationships that are morally wrong and counter to the 
interests and desires of a civilized society. But, of course, such things are 
holy grail to defenders of the "gay lifestyle" 

When Mrs. Hill and her group were allowed to speak, they pointed out 
that the books in question not only promote homosexuality to children but 
violate Texas law. Subsequently, the council voted on the idea of creating a 


restricted-access area for controversial children's books. However, council 
member Dan Shine and three others angrily rejected the idea. At that point, 
Mrs. Hill called for voters to use their authority as citizens to oust Shine and 
company in the upcoming city elections and to replace them with people 
with strong moral character. 

In light of the brewing controversy, the council said that if Mrs. Hill could 
gather the signatures of three hundred library cardholders who felt those 
books should be moved to an adult area of the library, then they would 
order the change. And that's when the fur started to fly. Shouts and protests 
were voiced in council chambers and for days later. Soon thereafter, the 
ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State weighed 
in. The ACLU threatened to file suit against the city, condemning the 
resolution allowing the people to decide. At that point the city council caved 
in, and Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate went straight 
back to the children's section. 

This is a sad example of what has happened to moral judgment in our 
cities, but it is by no means a new one. The names may be different, but the 
circumstances are the same. Time and again, hardworking mothers and 
fathers who want to uphold moral standards and raise their children in a 
safe and sane environment are defeated by a wellfinanced anti-Christian 
lobby who have bought into the homosexual agenda. And what makes such 
stories all the more heartbreaking is the fact that America's children are the 
prize. That's what the Left is after: to indoctrinate and recruit the next 
generation of children into the gay deathstyle. 


There are many such stories, but an incident that happened in 1984 helped 
me to see firsthand what is happening in the schools. In the fall of that year, 
I read an article in the Los Angeles Times announcing a new program called 
Project 10 at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles. It was a plan for reaching 
out to students who were "experiencing problems because of their sexual 
orientation" The teacher/counselor, they said, was Virginia Uribe, and each 
day during lunch hour she was holding open forum at lunch tables in the 
patio area of the school. I was surprised to see that story in print because I 
knew how subtle these people usually try to be. 

I immediately called the principal of that school and discussed with him 
what the homosexual agenda is all about. He told me he didn't necessarily 
agree with Ms. Uribe, but the meetings were held during lunch hour, and she 
was only talking to them about sexual orientation. At that point I asked 
about something else I'd seen in the article, a third-floor resource center. To 
my utter shock, he said, "I don't know about that. I've never been up there. 
But it's open to the public" So I said, "Don't you think it's about time you 
found out?" 


The minute I hung up, I got in my car and drove over to Fairfax High 
School. In those days you didn't need to check in at the office, so I went 
upstairs to the "resource center" and began looking around. One of the 
things I found was a paperback book titled One Teenager in Ten. It said that 
one teenager in ten is homosexual, and it featured several testimonies by 
people who had their first homosexual experience as teens or young adults 
and liked it. It was nothing but a propaganda piece, but I was floored by one 
of those stories about a girl who was seduced by her teacher in a dance 
class. The story described in revolting detail how the teacher had undressed 
this young girl and initiated lesbian sex with her. 

I thought, This is molestation! This book is advocating homosexual 
relations between children and teachers. So I put the book back where I 
found it and returned to my office. At that point I called a number of our 
supporting and activist churches. After consulting with them, I decided the 
best thing to do was to get a copy of that book and go to the next school 
board meeting. So that's what I did, and when the time came for me to 
speak, I began reading from that chapter where the teacher seduces a 
fourteen-year-old girl. 

As I was reading, several board members spoke up angrily. "Rev. Sheldon;" 
they shouted, "this is pornography. How dare you come in here and read 
that to us!" 

When they scolded me, I put the book down and said, "Thank you for 
making my point. This book can be found in the resource center, organized 
by Virginia Uribe, at Fairfax High School, right here in this city." I also told 
them they needed to get the principal to bring Ms. Uribe down to the school 
board so they could find out what else she was up to. And that's just what 
they did. 

That incident was just the beginning of a long-term pitched battle 
between Virginia Uribe and me. And the battle is still ongoing. There are 
now homosexual clubs in every public high school in Los Angeles. But that 
was also the first awakening for many churches, pastors, and concerned 
parents in that city to the war for our children's souls that is taking place in 
the Greater Los Angeles United School District. 


The fact is, children have long been the target of homosexual activists. The 
whole reason for the existence of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education 
Network (GLSEN) is to recruit children into the lifestyle. Since the 
organization was established in 1990, GLSEN has established more than 
twenty-five hundred Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs on junior high and 
high school campuses around the country. The group's founder, Kevin 
Jennings, is a former high school history teacher who came out of the closet 


while still a student at Concord Academy, an exclusive prep school in the 
Boston suburbs. He announced his homosexuality during a talk in chapel and 
later created the first club for homosexuals at the school. 

But make no mistake: GLSEN exists to recruit children into the 
homosexual lifestyle. Columnist and author Hans Zeiger, a student at 
Hillsdale College in Michigan and a veteran of the Left's war against the Boy 
Scouts, puts it very well. He says, "GLSEN is a cultural terrorist organization, 
and, as former Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted in February, the NEA 
is an educational terrorist organization.' ' What they are unable to 
accomplish by the legitimate power of persuasion, these groups force on the 
nation by intimidating and terrorizing their opponents-tactics they learned 
from the ACLU, who learned them from the Communist Party USA. 

Zeiger writes: 

Since 1996, GLSEN has organized the annual Homosexual Day of 
Silence in schools to raise awareness of closeted and open 
homosexuals who supposedly cannot speak for fear of 
homophobia. In April, several thousand schools recognized the 
Homosexual Day of Silence, many with official administrative and 
teacher support. GLSEN sponsors Pink Proms in hundreds of 
schools for students of alternative sexual orientations. 

In addition, transgender activists, in cooperation with GLSEN and others, 
actively promote cross-dressing and sex change operations to kids in the 
public schools. 

Groups like GLSEN force their way into the schools by claiming that 
homosexual and transgender students need to feel safe and that homosexual 
support groups are the answer. They claim that homosexual teens have high 
suicide rates because of the pressure they feel from unsupportive parents 
and conservatives, which makes it easier to convince school boards and 
reluctant parents of the need for such groups. But when the pressure tactics 
fail, GLSEN won't hesitate to bring legal action against any school that 
refuses to allow them to recruit on campus. 

Predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union volunteered to serve as the 
enforcement arm of GLSEN. In January 2004, an ACLU-GLSEN coalition won 
a major victory against the independent school district of Morgan Hill, 
California. The suit claimed that the school district had failed to protect six 
homosexual students from harassment. As part of the million-dollar 
settlement, school district employees were forced to attend pro-homosexual 
sensitivity-training classes. And beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, 
Morgan Hill schools would be required to instruct all ninth grade students 
on how to have "positive attitudes about homosexuality" 

As part of a campaign to recruit sexually confused teens, GLSEN actively 


recruits so-called "questioning" and "transgender youth" More recently, 
GLSEN and other homosexual activists have even tried to push the idea that 
genital deformities found in some newborns are evidence of a third sex-and 
not simply a birth defect. Reports we have produced at the Traditional 
Values Coalition dealing with these issues explain what's going on there and 
shed light on the effort to confuse and deconstruct the biological realities of 
male and female gender. 


Recruiting innocent children into the homosexual lifestyle is insidious, but 
recruiting and equipping teachers as agents and enforcers of their agenda is 
wickedness at a whole new level. That is, in fact, the mission of another 
group called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN). The 
goal of this organization is to influence educational policy at all levels. With 
more than four thousand teachers, students, and parents on their 
membership roles, GLSTN pushes a strongly pro-homosexual message and 
offers seminars on "gay-friendly curriculum development" 

At the beginning of each school year, GLSTN promotes a "Backto-School 
Campaign" that encourages homosexuals in business, academia, and the 
professions to take part in an aggressive letter-writing campaign "to change 
the ' hearts and minds' of leaders who control our schools" In other words, 
homosexuals are asked to write their former principals and teachers to tell 
them of their struggles and to admonish them to be more open, tolerant, and 
accepting of homosexuality in the classroom. 

On top of that, GLSTN distributes its recruitment videos (such as Teaching 
Respect for All and It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School) to 
teachers and administrators all over the country. The film It's Elementary 
would have to rank among the most notorious indoctrination films ever 
produced. Some professional researchers have even compared it to the work 
of Adolf Hitler's propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl, whose films of blonde- 
haired, blue-eyed Aryan children were used by the Nazis to foster the notion 
of a "master race" destined to rule the world. From start to finish. It's 
Elementary is designed to recruit and desensitize teachers to homosexuality 
and to present homosexuals as innocent victims of the Religious Right. 

The feature-length documentary pushes what it labels "multicultural 
education" and provides "a window into how teachers can find ways to 
teach children about gay issues" to elementary and middle-school children. 
But the film goes further than that, including outright hate sessions where 
homosexuals talk openly about being victimized by Christians and moral 
conservatives. The purpose is to create an image of the homosexual as 
victim and to portray anyone who refuses to accept homosexuals on their 
own terms as bigots and homophobes. 


What parents and school officials need to understand is that the 
organizers of these groups see your children as their property. They believe 
they're justified in changing the thoughts and habits of kids by forcing them 
to deal with complex social, sexual, and moral issues that, in most cases, are 
years beyond their grasp. The objective is to make children sympathize with 
the homosexual agenda and to become defenders of "homosexual rights." 
And by inventing a new category of "questioning" youth, the goal is to take 
advantage of the naivete and innocence of children who, at such a young 
age, aren't certain what they feel about sexuality or their own sexual 
identity. Thus, kids are ushered into the lifestyle, believing that 
experimenting with homosexuality is just another way of discovering who 
you really are. 

There's no question that tolerance for differences of opinion is a good 
thing. But tolerance for evil is insidious and, in this case, potentially deadly 
as well. That's why our two-thousand-year-old Judeo-Christian tradition 
forbids homosexuality and warns that those who trespass against God's 
creative order are treading on dangerous ground indeed. Individuals who 
scorn these ancient prohibitions bring despair and disease upon themselves 
and others, and nations that condone or endorse sexual sin are condemned. 
This history lesson, as I said in the beginning, is only too clear. Yet, millions 
have chosen to ignore these truths. 

Let me say it again. Never has the American Psychological Association or 
any journal of medicine, any school of medicine, or the National Academy of 
Sciences ever said that they have found a "gay gene" And, of course, they 
never will, because it simply doesn't exist. There is no scientific evidence of 
a genetic basis for homosexual behavior. The National Association for 
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), headed by Dr. Joseph 
Nicolosi, offers a wealth of information dealing with the "bom gay" myth, 
and this is what teachers and administrators ought to be sharing with our 
children. It is no sin to feel compassion for someone who is wrestling with 
their sexual identity or who may have experimented with homosexuality. But 
to allow such a person to continue in that lifestyle without a just, fair, 
scientific, and biblical warning of the consequences of long-term 
involvement in the lifestyle is to condemn them to a life of misery and a 
premature death. 


Homosexual activists have made it clear since the early 1970s that they have 
a plan for overhauling straight America and imposing their own brand of 
morality on the American culture. In a disturbingly frank interview for a 
homosexual Web site, radical activist Matt Foreman told a reporter that, as 
executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, his goal is 
not to persuade critics of his point of view but to utterly defeat the 
defenders of traditional morality, by any means necessary. In the interview 


he said: 

I'm also interested in going after, politically, local legislators and 
leaders that have launched these anti-gay initiatives. "We beat 
you, now we're gonna go back and we're going to affirmatively 
punish you"-people who launch this stuff, so that they understand 
not only that they're not going to win, but that there are 
consequences to it. We would set up a PAC and go in and terrify 
them with a credible challenge.... So we go in, for a modest 
investment of money, and torture these people, which would give 
me endless satisfaction. And the word would go out very quickly, 

"You know what, this really isn't worth it." 

Needless to say, gestapo tactics and intimidation of this sort have made it 
possible for Foreman and his fellow homosexuals to win victories all over 
the country in the past thirty years. In California, a prohomosexual 
legislature has passed dozens of bills that give aid and comfort to that state's 
affluent homosexual community while clearly threatening the speech, 
religion, and free association rights of everyone else. Gay activists lobbied 
for a bill supporting homosexual marriage, an antidiscrimination bill that 
would have a corrosive effect on businesses, a hate crimes bill that would 
stifle free speech, and a bill that requires businesses to provide health 
benefits for "domestic partners" And, by threats and intimidation, they got 
them all. 

More disturbing, however, are laws that have been passed by the 
legislature requiring California public schools to promote homosexuality as a 
positive lifestyle. One of Gray Davis's first initiatives as governor was to sign 
new legislation expanding gay rights in the state. One such bill was AB 1785, 
which required all public schools to promote "diversity" and develop 
"tolerance" programs. A task force appointed by the state's superintendent 
of public instruction distributed guidelines for implementation of these 
policies. Those guidelines included: 

1. Accommodate "transgendered" students in public school locker rooms 

2. End the right of parents to remove their children from surveys of sexual 

3. Require teachers to receive "diversity training" in order to be certified 

4. Establish gay support groups and "diversity czars" at all public schools 

No wonder Davis was successfully recalled and sent packing by the voters 
of California in 2004. But these are just a few examples of the increasingly 
aggressive tactics of the gay rights crowd and their lackeys. The goal is to 
take over the government and push through bills of this sort that the people 
themselves would never approve. 


Instead of merely "defending" victims, as they claim, homosexual activists 
want to undermine the historic institutions and values of our culture. This is 
not just my opinion, but the stated goal of many on that side of this issue. 
"We are essentially a radical movement, and in as far as we are successful 
we do indeed break down the hegemony of certain traditional values;" 
admits one gay rights activist. His statement, printed in the homosexual 
newspaper NY Native, goes even further by claiming that homosexual 
activists "need to defend our own minorities, whether they be man-boy 
lovers, transvestites, or sadomasochists;" because of the importance to their 
whole agenda of eroding this country's moral boundaries. 

If you ever doubted it, there is the evidence that the homosexual 
community is waging war on America, and there is apparently no limit to 
how far their aggressive campaign will go. In 2004, we discovered that the 
ACLU had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to ban military bases 
from sponsoring Boy Scout troops. Why? Because the Boy Scouts have 
successfully resisted admitting homosexual Scout leaders. Target stores 
banned Salvation Army bell ringers and prevented them from raising funds to 
help the poor and needy in front of their stores. Why? Because The Salvation 
Army refused to provide health insurance to "domestic partners." And a 
federal judge ruled that universities can prohibit military recruiters from 
campus. Why? Because the military, instead of accepting openly gay service 
members, decided to institute a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for 


If stealth and deceit fail, the homosexual avengers take the direct approach. 
One such approach is what GLSEN organizers call the "Day of Silence" in 
public schools. This event is supposed to give students a chance to protest 
discrimination against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender students on 
junior high and high school campuses. In reality, the event is designed to 
intimidate and silence opposition to the homosexual agenda and the 
recruiting efforts of groups like GLSEN in the schools. Those who oppose the 
agenda are labeled bigots and accused of promoting hatred and violence 
against homosexuals. Simultaneously, they push for restriction of hate 
speech in the schools and regulations that ban any kind of criticism of 
homosexuality. Here again, the same individuals who scream loudest at any 
attempt to limit homosexual conduct are only too willing to censor, silence, 
and vilify their opponents. 

American school children have an instinctive desire to defend the 
underdog and to speak up for the rights of those who aren't getting a fair 
shake. This is natural and understandable, but homosexual activists 
discovered they could take advantage of this instinct by first claiming victim 
status and then giving students a way to protest. Another example of this 
was "No Name-Calling Week," a pseudo-event created by GLSEN with the aid 


of a New York publishing giant. 

The first "No Name-Calling Week" took place March 1-5,2004. The event 
was inspired by the 2003 release of a Simon & Schuster book called The 
Misfits by homosexual author James Howe. The book is a fictional account 
of the struggles of a homosexual middle-school student. And "No Name- 
Calling Week" shamelessly promotes not only a commercial product but also 
unquestioned advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle among children who, as 
responsible medical specialists have said, are developmentally immature and 
unequipped for the types of moral questions that are involved. 

But the exploitation of young people in the schools, unfortunately, 
doesn't stop there. Another program being pushed by GLSEN is a lesson plan 
for teachers dealing with cross-dressing and so-called "nongender 
conforming clothing" The lesson is titled, "what's with the Dress, Jack?" and 
focuses on the story of an Indian tribe that encouraged its children to wear 
"the clothes that suit them best and play the games they most enjoy, 
without the limits of stereotypical gender roles" 

The lesson, for children in kindergarten through sixth grade, includes 
questions that encourage children not to accept society's ideas of gender 
roles but to find their own. For example, one question teachers are to pose 
to their students asks: "What makes us think of certain clothing, activities, 
and things as being only for girls or only for boys?" Another asks: "Were men 
able to wear dresses in the past, and not today?" And kids are taught the 
Native American term for a homosexual man, "two spirit" 

Just in case any school district may decide they don't need to use these 
materials to further confuse their students about gender and sex roles, the 
National Center for Lesbian Rights, with the aid of GLSEN, published a 
booklet to give administrators another reason why they ought to require all 
teachers to affirm homosexuality on their campuses. The booklet, entitled 
"Fifteen Expensive Reasons Why Safe Schools Legislation Is in Your State's 
Best Interest;' lists court cases like the one at Morgan City, California, where 
huge settlements have been won by the ACLU and where judges have ruled 
in favor of promoting homosexuality in the schools. 


Gerald Hannon is a homosexual pedophile who openly lobbies for the 
abolition of "age of consent" laws. While age of consent laws vary from 
country to country and from state to state, all of them set a minimum age 
below which an adult is prohibited from having sexual contact with a child. 
But Hannon and his allies want to decriminalize sex with children. As part of 
his campaign, Hannon is now pushing for recruitment programs in the public 


In a disturbing book published by New York University Press, Lavender 
Culture, Hannon reveals what he's really after: lowering the age of consent 
so homosexuals can have sex with children. Homosexuals need teenagers in 
their movement, he says, and where will they get them? "The answer is to 
proselytize;" says Hannon. "To attract young people to the gay movement in 
large numbers should be the challenge to the next phase of the movement. It 
is a challenge we have set ourselves." 

Hannon then goes on to describe the importance of establishing 
homosexual clubs with adult advisors and mentors to initiate children into 
the homosexual lifestyle. Children are to be lured in and then indoctrinated 
to believe that parents are a "constant source of exasperation and 
amusement" To succeed in their task, adult homosexuals have to separate 
children from their parents and cause them to question the values they have 
been taught at home. And all this is being done, thanks to the NEA and 
cooperative school administrators, at taxpayer expense. 

So how should we react to such news? Parents need to rise up and 
demand an end to homosexual recruitment in the public schools. 
Furthermore, they need to demand an accounting for how their tax dollars 
are being spent. They should also demand an end to all programs 
implemented by the schools, teachers, and their unions that undermine 
parental authority and the moral values they are trying to instill in their 
children at home. 

People like Gerald Hannon have nothing but contempt for parental 
authority. In a major research paper on Hannon and his tactics. Dr. Judith 
Reisman, author of the outstanding books on Alfred Kinsey cited in chapter 
two, writes that, "As the homosexual movement has long advocated ending 
age of consent laws, those familiar with the movement literature realize that 
parental fears of pederasts and pedophiles using school access to recruit 
children into sex is realistic." 

It's absolutely certain, she says, that as homosexuals continue to make 
inroads into the public schools, more children will be molested and initiated 
into the world of homosexuality. In the paper Dr. Reisman refers to research 
conducted by Dr. Gene Abel, who compared the rate of homosexual 
molestation with that of heterosexual molestation. What he found was that, 
in a sample of 153 self-confessed homosexual pederasts, they had assaulted 
a total of 22,981 victims-or approximately 150 boys per offender. Of the 
heterosexual offenders who had molested girls, with a total of 4,435 
molestations, the average was just under 20 victims by each pedophile. 
According to Dr. Abel's study, the incidence of molestation among 
homosexual offenders is a rate five times greater than that for heterosexual 

Are there no limits to what homosexuals will do to satisfy their lusts? One 
can only wonder how far things have to go before all Americans recognize 


the legitimate evil of this movement. Scott Whiteman, who works with the 
Parents Rights Commission in the state of Massachusetts, made up his mind 
to find out how far things could go and signed up to attend a "Teach Out" 
sponsored by GLSEN on the campus of Tufts University in March 2000. At 
the conference, Whiteman secretly tape-recorded several workshops, and 
what he heard was eye opening, to say the least. 

One workshop was called, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & 
Sexuality in Health Class: A Workshop for Youth Only, Ages 1421" In that 
session, Whiteman listened to two lesbians and a homosexual male (all 
certified HIV instructors in that state) teach children how to engage in 
homosexual "fisting," which involves thrusting one's fist and arm into the 
anus of a sex partner. The instructors discussed pros and cons of swallowing 
semen after oral sex, and tables outside the classrooms were stacked high 
with even more perverse literature and other how-to guides. 

One workshop dealt with distribution of "pocket sex kits" for teens. Each 
kit contained two condoms, two antiseptic moist towelettes, and six 
bandages. According to the teen who was handing out kits to attendees, the 
bandages were for "when the sex got really rough" After a conservative 
Internet site in Massachusetts revealed details of what Scott Whiteman had 
seen that day, the popular Internet news site WorldNetDaily picked up the 
story, and it soon took off like a rocket, making headlines worldwide. 

Since then, the head of the Massachusetts Department of Education has 
fired one lesbian HIV instructor, accepted another lesbian's resignation, and 
abolished the position held by the homosexual HIV instructor. As a reward 
for exposing the truth to the light of day, Scott Whiteman and Brian 
Carmenker of the Parents Rights Coalition were sued by a lesbian instructor 
and a teenager at the conference who claimed their privacy rights had been 
violated. The plaintiffs lost that suit and won no damages. Fortunately, the 
judge had put a gag order on everyone involved to prevent further 
distortions. But the real questions should be: What about the privacy rights 
of our children? What about the moral sanity of the classroom? And why has 
the public school classroom been allowed to become a place for homosexual 
recruiters to push their sordid agenda? 


What is happening in places like California and Massachusetts is only a tiny 
sample of what's happening all over the country today, even in places where 
you would never guess that such deceit and political maneuvering could 
have an effect. Kevin Jennings once described the tactics that he and his 
colleagues in GLSEN have used to a group of homosexuals at a Human 
Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference in 1995. In those remarks, 
Jennings said: 


If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on 
children, we will lose. Their language-"promoting homosexuality" 
as one example-is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo 
that we are "after their kids" We must learn from the abortion 
struggle, where the clever claiming of the term "pro-life" allowed 
those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to 
their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be 
painted into a comer before the debate ever begins. 

Jennings then went on to say that in Massachusetts the reframing of the 
issue was key to their success in persuading the Governor's Commission on 
Gay and Lesbian Youth to side with the homosexual advocates. He said, "We 
immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card-safety-and explained 
how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a 
climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are 

Titling our report, "Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian 
Youth," we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive 
and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited 
their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one. 
Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to 
victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the 
community has in common. In Massachusetts, no one could speak 
up against our frame and say, "Why, yes, I do think students 
should kill themselves" This allowed us to set the terms for the 

In the world where most of us live, such tactics are known as "bait and 
switch." What Jennings and company set out to do was to promise one 
thing-safety for all children-and deliver something else entirely: homosexual 
recruitment, molestation, and initiation. 

Homosexuals promoted the issue of "safety" for "gay teens," and they 
pushed the notion that homosexual teenagers were committing suicide in 
record numbers. To do that they used bogus statistics created by a 
homosexual social worker in San Francisco. The study, "Gay Male and 
Lesbian Youth Suicide" by Paul Gibson, was included as a supporting 
document in a 1989 report on youth suicide published by the United States 
Department of Health and Human Services. I had a lengthy meeting with 
Dr. Louis Sullivan, who was Secretary of Health and Human Services at the 
time, and subsequently he thoroughly repudiated Gibson's exaggerated 
report. Furthermore, Dr. David Shaffer, an analyst from Columbia 
University, concluded that Gibson's data was "more hocus pocus than math" 
All the same, the timing and placement couldn't have been better for 
promoters of the homosexual agenda. 

If there's one thing we need to learn from this sad litany about how the 


agenda has taken over the nation's public schools, it's that we cannot afford 
to give up or to withdraw from this fight before the battle is won. America's 
children are too precious to us and to the future of this nation to entrust 
them to the destructive forces of the public schools. We must do everything 
in our power to stop this agenda, and then take steps to overwhelm and 
defeat the enemies of morality and truth. If there was ever an issue that 
demanded a strong response, this is it. If there was ever a time when we 
needed an informed and responsive outcry from concerned parents and their 
advocates and representatives in high places, now is the time, and this is the 


It can be done. Just a few years ago in New York City, a single feisty 
grandmother, Mary Cummins, was so fed up with the trendy "Children of the 
Rainbow" curriculum being pushed by the education elites on the Manhattan 
School Board that she called our office. We arranged to meet in New York to 
talk about how she ought to respond. After that meeting, Mary got on the 
phone and rallied thousands of like-minded parents to her cause. She 
stepped in, stuck with it, and got the media and the churches behind her. 
That honest woman not only stopped the curriculum, but she also managed 
to get the chancellor of New York schools relieved of his job. 

In Pennsylvania, Peg Luksik led a grassroots campaign that fought for and 
pushed through legislation that gave local municipalities the authority to 
throw out "outcomes-based education" in their public schools. 

And in Colorado, outraged parents and concerned voters tossed out 
virtually the entire school board in the city of Littleton and replaced them 
with a slate of pro-family, pro-America, pro-education leaders who were 
committed to restoring the character and integrity of the schools. And, 
with God's help, we can do all of that and more. 

In the homosexual manifesto of Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill (aka Hunter 
Madsen), "The Overhauling of Straight America;" the authors told us what 
they were up to. 

In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the 
masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure 
to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should 
be downplayed and gay-rights should be reduced to an abstract 
social question as much as possible. First, let the camel get his 
nose inside the tent-and only later his unsightly derriere! 

Well, today we can see that unsightly derriere only too well, and it's high 
time to kick the whole unsightly camel out of the tent. And what better 
motivation could we have than the battle to save America's children? 


Here's a brief sampling from a list made available on the Internet of books 
from several pro-homosexual bookstores, publishers, and distributors that 
promote homosexuality in the schools: 

■ Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School 
and College, Kevin Jennings, $9.95. Ready for immediate classroom use and 
drawing from both primary and secondary sources, this reader covers over 
two thousand years of history and a diverse range of cultures. Each selection 
is followed by questions that could be assigned to students and suggestions 
for classroom activities. The readings are suitable for age levels from ninth 
grade through college, but the book will also be welcomed by general 
readers seeking insight into gay and lesbian history. 

■ Coming Out of the Classroom Closet: Gay and Lesbian Students, Teachers, 
and Curricula, Karen Harbeck, $14.95. Looks closely at issues surrounding 
homosexuality in schools. Includes a history of treatment of homosexuals in 
schools, legal rights of lesbians and gays, effects of internalized 
homophobia, lesbian and gay student perceptions of counselor, and images 
of lesbians and gays in textbooks. Required reading for all persons 
concerned about continuing to provide high-quality education. 

■ Lesbian Teachers: An Invisible Presence, Madiha Didi Khayatt, $21.95. 
Using an analysis that combines feminist concepts of patriarchy with 
Gramsci's notion of hegemony, this book is an institutional ethnography that 
begins from the standpoint of lesbian teachers, but, at the same time, 
locates their experiences in the immediate social organization from which 
they arise and that gives them meaning. 

■ One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories, Kevin 
Jennings, $9.95. Gay and lesbian teachers have traditionally dwelt in the 
deepest of closets. But increasing numbers of young people are now served 
by teachers who are out proud. Here, for the first time, educators from all 
regions of the country tell about their struggles and victories as they put 
their own careers at risk in their fight for justice. 

■ School's Out: The Impact of Gay and Lesbian Issues on America's Schools, 
Dan Woog, $11.95. This book explores the lives and worlds of the hundreds 
of thousands of gay and lesbian students, teachers, principals, coaches, 
counselors, and their heterosexual allies. Gay and lesbian issues are among 
the most important faced today. This book is filled with true stories, some 
inspiring, some frightening. 

■ Tilting the Tower: Lesbians Teaching Queer Subjects, Linda Garber, $15.95. 
Explores the status of lesbians and lesbian studies in the high school and 
university classroom and in the academy. Bringing together high school 
teachers, community college and four-year university professors, graduate 
students, and tenured program directors, the volume documents the voices, 
personal experiences, teaching strategies, and activist efforts to diversify the 
curriculum, the classroom, and the campus. 


■ Twenty-First Century Challenge: Lesbians and Gays in Education Bridging 
the Gap, Sue McConnell-Celi, $17.95. Over thirty lesbian and gay educators 
present their stories of staying in and coming out in the educational setting. 
This fascinating anthology includes essays, comic strips, photographs, and 
fiction. Some contributions are from gay youth in high school. 

The tone and content of these books are chilling. But the aim is 
abundantly clear, and no further commentary is needed. 




Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person 
of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so.... 
Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and 
family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.... 
We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives 
to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality. 



SINCE ADAM AND Eve, civilized societies have understood that a family 
consists of a mother, a father, and their children. But, amazingly, some 
people want us to believe this sane and logical definition needs updating. 
People like Paula Ettelbrick, for example, who is executive director of the 
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission in New York and 
an adjunct professor of law at Barnard College, would have us believe that 
the concept of family is flexible and fluid, that it can shift to accommodate 
just about any assortment of individuals. Of course she's wrong, and ten 
thousand years of human history is the best witness against her. But that 
hasn't stopped radicals like Ettelbrick from tampering with laws of human 
nature that ought to be sacrosanct. 

Unmoved by centuries of biological reality, homosexual activists are only 
too eager to abandon fundamental social realities in order to promote their 
agenda. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that it takes 
two to procreate. That's how the system works. And those two have to be 
male and female. Feminists have tried to prove that embryos can be created 
by other means than the traditional way-the mating process and the union of 
egg and sperm-but all the biomedical gymnastics in the world can't change 
the fact that human beings and other living things come into existence 
through reproduction, and tampering with God's pristine design is playing 
with fire. 

But playing with fire is common practice for many in the homosexual 
movement. Georgi Somers and Sandy Gast are two people who offer a grim 
picture of what's ahead for the concept of family if the homosexual shape- 
shifters have their way. Somers and Gast are both male-to-female 
transsexuals who are still in "transition" Both have male and female sexual 


characteristics and believe they should have the "right" to many each other. 
Both of them are suffering from a mental problem called a gender identity 
disorder (GID). However, instead of locating a psychiatrist to help them 
overcome their unnatural feelings of being members of the opposite sex, 
they found a surgeon who was willing to mutilate their bodies and transform 
them into fake females. 

In February 2004, Sandy Gast filled out a marriage license request in 
Leavenworth County, Kansas, on which he indicated that he was a woman. 
He had a driver's license, social security card, and an amended birth 
certificate reflecting his new sexual identity. He and Georgi Somers, another 
transsexual, were planning to wed. Somers' daughter, however, was aghast at 
what was happening and called Kansas authorities with the news that 
Somers was actually her father, and not a woman. The marriage documents 
were illegal, and Sandy Gast was arrested for making false claims on his 
marriage license application. 

Leavenworth County prosecuting attorney Frank Kohl told reporters, "The 
change of a driver's license, the change of nameeven though they were done 
through legal channels, doesn't change gender." Kohl notes: "The gender 
you're bom with is the gender you remain for life." He then cited a 2002 
Kansas Supreme Court mling involving a transsexual who had married a 
wealthy millionaire named Marshall Gardiner in 1998. When Gardiner died 
less than a year later, his transsexual "spouse" J'Noel, tried to collect his 
inheritance as his "wife" But the Kansas Supreme Court mled that J'Noel 
couldn't collect the inheritance because under Kansas state law he was a 
man. And they added, "A post-operative male-to-female transsexual does not 
fit the common definition of a female." 


Unfortunately, the same types of confusion that exist within the homosexual 
community are seeping into the rest of the culture as well. According to the 
U.S. Census Bureau, by 1998, only 25 percent of American households still 
fit the "traditional" definition of two parents and their children. From 1994 
to 1998, the number of maniedcouple households in the United States 
increased by 2 percent, while the number of unmarried households 
increased by 11 percent. So on top of a heartbreaking rise in divorces, with 
half of all first marriages and nearly two-thirds of all second marriages 
ending in divorce, we're also seeing a rise in cohabitation, and a marriage 
rate that lags behind that of any previous era in our history. 

Also according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of households 
made up of unmarried couples today has grown by 800 percent since 1970. 
Fully 49 percent of women aged thirty to thirty-four say they've lived with a 
man before marriage. Many of these people believe that cohabitation 
improves their chances of a happy and lasting marriage, but that's not the 


case. A survey by researchers at Washington State University shows that 
women who cohabit are more than twice as likely to become victims of 
domestic violence. And a separate study from the National Institute of 
Mental Health reveals that women who cohabit are three times more likely 
to suffer from depression and anxiety than those who do not cohabit. 

Furthermore, UCLA researchers found that the lack of a genuine 
commitment of marriage interferes with sexual satisfaction. Couples who 
lived together first and married later reported less satisfaction in their 
marriage than couples who had not cohabited, according to the National 
Institute for Healthcare Research. Even more important, a University of 
Denver study showed that married couples who cohabited before marriage 
have a substantially higher rate of divorce than those who did not live 
together first. What all of these studies reveal is that trendy redefinitions of 
the God-given principles of family formation simply do not work. And toying 
with God's creative order in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" is 
playing with fire. 

Dr. Charles Socarides is the author of more than eighty books and journal 
articles dealing with the serious medical and sociological consequences of 
homosexuality. In his book entitled Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, the 
distinguished psychoanalyst answers "a thousand questions about causes 
and cure and the impact of the gay rights movement on American society." 
One of the problems discussed in those pages is the confusion brought 
about by the deliberate misuse of terms such as diversity and democracy by 
the homosexual Left. 

Many in departments of science and elsewhere in the universities, he says, 
have bought into the idea of "diversity at any price." They maintain that 
diversity brings consensus and unity on complex social issues, when it 
actually does just the opposite. "Diversity implies division;" says Socarides. 
The sociologists have everything backwards, and "they're turning centuries 
of civilization on its head, by trying to institutionalize same-sex sex" 

Homosexual activists are all for the collapse of the traditional twoparent 
family, just as they're all for "diversity" and "tolerance;" which, as Charles 
Socarides points out, are concepts "that will destroy the civilization we built 
in this nation under the old theory of the melting pot-a theory that didn't 
deny differences brought to our shores from afar, but opted, wisely, not to 
put taxpayers' dollars into structures that would emphasize them." 

But it's not just taxpayer abuse that ought to trouble us. Our schools and 
colleges are being taken over by the diversity epidemic, and with it has come 
an all-out war to enforce homosexual advocacy on students in classrooms 
and dorm rooms coast-to-coast. According to a report from the National Gay 
and Lesbian Task Force, more than forty-five colleges and universities in this 
country already offer at least one course on gay and lesbian issues in their 
departments of literature, history, sociology, and psychology. The City 


University of New York, for example, opened its gay and lesbian research 
center more than a decade ago, in 1991. In 1993, San Francisco State 
became the country's first four-year university to offer a formal academic 
program of courses on gay, lesbian, and bisexual culture. And these are only 
a few examples. 

Typical are courses in lesbian literature, sexual identity, and 
homosexuality on film. Only in such an environment would you find a 
course such as English 317 at the University of Michigan, "How to Be Gay: 
Male Homosexuality and Initiation" Or the course "Selected Topics in 
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Literature" at the University of Maryland. 
Predictably, professors in these programs have made the AIDS epidemic, not 
a cause for alarm or for restoring a sound moral judgment among their 
students, but precisely the opposite. They have made HIV and AIDS out to 
be badges of honor. And they blame these diseases not on their own bad 
choices but on Christians and others who have warned about the deadly 
consequences of homosexuality. 


The typical university campus today is a front for promoting the gay lifestyle 
to young men and women. This may come as a surprise to parents who are 
investing their life savings to educate their children, but it's a fact, and 
almost nothing is being done to stop it. The goal and aim of the vast 
majority of faculty members on many of the nation's most prestigious 
university campuses are no longer to educate and prepare the next 
generation of young Americans for leadership, but, rather, "to raise gay 
consciousness" among students-which is just more evidence that higher 
education in this country has been politicized virtually beyond repair. 

What is the agenda on campus? "More propaganda than science;" says 
Socarides. And those who teach in gay and lesbian studies departments 
actually believe that homosexuality gives them a special cachet. What a 
fraud! Homosexuals can be redeemed from same-sex attraction, as I will 
show in due course, but the idea that the homosexual "deathstyle" is 
something to be proud of is tragic indeed. And the fact that it's being 
promoted in the midst of an epidemic that will kill millions before the 
contagion has run its course is a crime and a curse on our land. 

The prophet Isaiah was speaking of people like this when he wrote, "Woe 
to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and 
light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20, 
NKJv). Everything in the homosexual culture has been turned upside down, 
and the men and women who fall into this lifestyle, for whatever reasons, 
are subject to every sort of evil. They are dying of terrible diseases in record 
numbers, and still they refuse to admit or even recognize what it is that's 
killing them. 


When news of a new AIDS "supervirus" hit the headlines in early 2005, 
leaders of the homosexual community panicked. A lengthy report in the New 
York Times said that, "While many are calling for a renewed commitment to 
prevention effort and free condoms, some veterans of the war on AIDS are 
advocating an entirely new approach.... They want to track down those who 
knowingly engage in risky behavior and try to stop them before they can 
infect others." The author of the book The Gay Metropolis, Charles Kaiser, 
went so far as to say that, "Gay men do not have the right to spread a 
debilitating and often fatal disease" And he added, "A person who is HIV- 
positive has no more right to unprotected intercourse than he has the right 
to put a bullet through another person's head. 

Even homosexual activist Larry Kramer, who has AIDS, felt compelled to 
confront the homosexual community in a speech at New York's Cooper 
Union, criticizing gay men for their indiscriminate promiscuous behavior. 
"You are still murdering each other;" he told them. "Please stop with all the 
generalizations and avoidance excuses gays have used since the beginning to 
ditch this responsibility for this fact" The audience heard his words, but was 
anybody really listening? 

No sooner had Kramer's and Kaiser's warnings been publicized by the 
mainstream media and the homosexual press than many homosexual activist 
groups began issuing warnings about the dangers of allowing the public 
health system to police homosexual behaviors. Even in the face of their own 
death and the potential of a catastrophic pandemic that could eventually 
reach far beyond the members of their own community, these sexual 
hedonists refused to limit their excessive behaviors or even to call for 
rational changes to their erotic behaviors. 

This is the crisis of our time. It's the very face of evil. From the college 
campus to the media centers of New York and Hollywood, people who 
should know better are buying into an agenda that could destroy us, and 
they're doing it in a big way. They are not concerned for the safety of others, 
and they refuse to respect reasonable limits on their behavior. The TV and 
film industries actively promote homosexuality to our children with no 
concern for the consequences. Very few young people today understand the 
risks of the gay lifestyle, but kids in the schools and colleges are being 
encouraged to become vocal advocates for homosexuals and their lifestyle. 


In his research with individuals who have attempted to leave the 
homosexual lifestyle. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover found that 52 percent of those 
who entered a program of therapy were able to overcome their attraction for 
individuals of the same sex. The research team of Masters and Johnson 
reported more than twenty years ago a 65 percent success rate after a five- 
year follow-up, and some counselors have reported successful rates of 


change as high as 70 percent. And when faith is a factor in the therapy, 
these changes are not only lasting but truly miraculous. 

The real problem is that too many people think they can play with fire and 
get away with it. They want to experience the excitement of sexual 
gratification without following the rules laid down by the Creator. In his 
book The Bible and Homosexuality, Robert Gagnon writes: 

The powerful mating instinct built into the human species, with 
its enormous potential for both pleasure and pain, consumes an 
extraordinary amount of our time and energy as we attempt to 
figure out how to satisfy it and domesticate it, with whom and 
when, so as to maximize pleasure and minimize pain to ourselves 
and others. The mating instinct can be harnessed to build families, 
contribute to a stable and maturing society generally, and promote 
happiness, but it can also destroy those social goods. 
Consequently, much is at stake on nearly any issue involving 
sexual ethics. 

This is no idle warning. Unprincipled and immoral sexual indulgence- 
whether it's same-sex or male-and-female relationships-is a dangerous and 
often disastrous enterprise. How many millions of homes have been wrecked 
by it? How many lives have been destroyed by it? We may never know, but 
the human cost is enormous, and it's not just the participants who are 
damaged. Sometimes it's the innocent children who learn by observing what 
their parents or others are doing who are scarred by it and lured into 
behaviors for which they're simply not prepared. 

Take, for example, a story reported by Joseph Farah on the Internet Web 
site WorldNetDaily about a ring of children in a small town in Pennsylvania, 
some of them no more than seven years of age, who were caught teaching 
each other to have sex. The large group of elementary and middle-school 
children hid their sexual activities from parents and teachers but readily 
admitted it when confronted by the police. Newberry Township Police Chief 
Bill Myers, who prepared the charges that would send six of these youngsters 
to juvenile court, said that the boldness and lack of shame of the children 
was the most disturbing aspect of the case. 

"These kids knew that what they were doing wasn't right;" he said, "but 
they didn't know it was as bad as it was. There was a naivete about the legal 
and moral consequences" Charges filed against six of the youths included 
rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and indecent assault. "Why 
didn't these kids know how wrong it is?" asks columnist and author Joseph 
Farah. "For the same reason most kids in America today don't know. They've 
never been told-at least not in any authoritative and meaningful way" 

Thanks to Hollywood, TV, and the lyrics of the rock and rap music that 
saturates their every waking hour, the main message kids are getting today is 


that sex of any kind is always cool. Sex education programs, as I said in the 
previous chapter, are not about protecting children from harm but luring 
them into harm's way-as if condoms were the answer for every problem. Our 
children aren't learning the three Rs anymore, but they are getting the 
message that sex is fun-so just do it! Kids as young as five and six years old 
are taught how to put condoms on bananas. There's little left to the 
imagination in most of the entertainment our children consume. So why are 
we shocked to discover that they're having wild sex parties after school? 
These kids have been taught how to do it since kindergarten, and they 
learned their lessons very well. 

Today's most popular TV shows push sex in prime time. Based on the 
large number of sitcoms that feature openly gay characters, you have to 
believe that the most favored and most protected type of sexuality is 
homosexuality. Homosexuals are invariably portrayed as funny, sensitive, 
and caring individuals. At the same time, critics of homosexuality are 
portrayed as bigoted and ignorant homophobes who have to leam to accept 
homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. Homosexual screen and television 
writers have so successfully co-opted the language of civil rights that they 
have transformed a sin the Bible calls an "abomination" into a protected 
"civil right" 

Programs such as Will and Grace, Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the 
Straight Guy, and certain episodes of cartoon features such as The Simpsons 
incorporate homosexual themes and make homosexual characters their 
heroes. A hit drama on the Showtime network, called The L Word, is all 
about lesbian relationships and the quirky things that happen to a group of 
lesbian women. These shows are designed to desensitize Americans to the 
genuine risks of the homosexual agenda. And they often do it by force, to 
the point that organizations like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against 
Defamation (GLAAD) actually have veto power over many of these scripts 
and can actually force directors and producers to rewrite dialogue that casts 
an unflattering light on homosexuals. And we wonder why some of our 
kids are confused? 


In recent years, the battle for same-sex marriage has become the centerpiece 
of the homosexual agenda. Homosexuals say they want the right to get 
married and live normal lives just like heterosexual couples, but this is a lie. 
On the surface, marriage seems like such a natural and innocent request. 
Who could argue with that? But that's another part of the homosexuals' 
campaign of deception. What they actually want is to force same-sex 
marriage on America as part of a much larger strategy for destroying the 
concept of marriage altogether. 

If that sounds extreme, consider the words of one of their own. Writing in 


Out! magazine, homosexual activist Michelangelo Signo- rile makes this 
aspect of the agenda perfectly clear. In the article he urges his fellow 
homosexuals to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once 
granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely.... To debunk a myth 
and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action 
lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of 
society-is to transform the notion of ' family' altogether" 

There it is: the mission is not participation but subversion. Very much like 
attorney and activist Paula Ettelbrick, mentioned earlier, Signorile's goal is to 
bulldoze moral restraint and to invalidate cultural restrictions on sexual 
hedonism in all its forms. Ultimately, the activists want the freedom to 
indulge in activities-as expressed by the newest buzzword of the homosexual 
lifestyle, polyamory, which is group sex-that will destroy any meaningful 
definition of family. Some, like Signorile, admit now what I've been saying 
for years: their goal is to abolish all prohibitions against sex with multiple 
partners. In other words, "Anything goes!" 

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its edict in 
November 2003, there was no question that the real aim was legalizing 
same-sex marriage, not just in that state, but in every state. Because of the 
implicit dangers of that ruling, there are efforts under way in some quarters 
to block the court's action and institute Defense of Marriage (DOMA) 
legislation. But it's unclear what the citizens of Massachusetts, Vermont, 
California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other states where this issue has 
arisen will actually do, or what sort of restrictions they will support. 

According to one recent poll, 68 percent of the American people favor 
preserving marriage as it has been known throughout recorded history- 
namely, the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. But will 
that huge majority persuade the courts? If marriage is redefined to include 
same-sex unions, more than likely it will be because a few unprincipled 
judges, bowing to homosexuals and their supporters, are determined to force 
their idea of marriage and family on an unwilling nation. 

When Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, they 
did so with the support of 68 percent of the American people. The vote in 
the House was an astonishing 342 to 67, and in the Senate it was an equally 
impressive 85 to 14. The bill was signed into law by then President Bill 
Clinton, but he did it in the middle of the night to make sure there was little 
or no opportunity for the press to report on this important story. That law 
recognized the traditional definition of marriage as the legal union of one 
man and one woman. It also insured that no state would be forced to accept 
another state's definition of marriage if it included either "civil unions" or 
"same-sex marriage 

Subsequently, forty-three states passed constitutional amendments and 
ordinances of various kinds to protect the institution of marriage from 


redefinition by the homosexual lobby. But now this legislation faces new 
challenges in Florida, California, and Nebraska. On May 12, 2005, a single 
federal judge in Omaha, Nebraska, decided that an amendment to the state's 
constitution banning homosexual marriage was unconstitutional. Despite the 
fact that the amendment had been passed by an overwhelming 70 percent of 
Nebraska's voters, judge Joseph Battalion had the audacity to side with the 
ACLU and overturn the wishes of the electorate. 

Judge Battalion's bad decision is just one more sign of things to come if 
the American people don't rise up and say, "Enough is enough!" Our 
Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to protect us 
from such things, and no federal judge should have the authority to overturn 
the will of the people. But that's where we find ourselves all too often these 

Since DOMA was signed into law, a long list of academics, activists, and 
their lawyers have introduced legal challenges claiming the federal and state 
laws are unconstitutional. But the people of America say otherwise. In poll 
after poll it's clear that the American people want to preserve the sanctity of 
marriage. They want to safeguard the family. But unless we are able to 
convince our representatives in Congress, and in state legislatures 
nationwide, to fight for our values, decisions like the one in Massachusetts 
could easily become the pretext for introducing same-sex marriage 
provisions into the laws of every state. 

If same-sex marriage is recognized in state laws, the results will be 
catastrophic. In his book Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at 
Risk, Matthew Stayer addressed this very issue: 

If same-sex marriage is recognized, then 95 percent of the 
homosexual agenda will have been achieved. It will be just a 
matter of time before that agenda infiltrates and undermines every 
part of the culture, from the classroom to the courtroom, from 
Congress to city hall, from private affairs to business, from the 
family to our fundamental freedoms. Certainly there is no 
constitutional, historical, or logical basis for samesex marriage. 

Ultimately, the only way that federal and state governments can protect 
us from this sort of abuse is for Congress to pass a constitutional 
amendment that declares legal marriage in this country to be only the legal 
union of one man and one woman. To become law, such an amendment 
would require a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress followed by 
ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures-this is the only process 
that has ever been used successfully in this country. That means we need the 
votes of 290 members of the House of Representatives and 67 senators to 
get this measure to the president's desk, where it can be signed into law. It's 
not easy, but if Christians and others who care about the sanctity of the 
family rise to the challenge, by contacting their representatives, I believe it 


can be done, and also I believe it's the only way to stop the deliberate 
"overhauling of straight America" 


In his article "Beyond Gay Marriage" in the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz 
says, "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a 
slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' (group marriage). 
Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking 
two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every 
conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The 
bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized 
polygamy is growing." 

Marriage, as Kurtz and others have reiterated, is a vital social contract and 
a foundational building block of society. Not only do families depend on 
marriage for strength and stability, but also society itself hinges on the 
preservation and protection of stable two-parent families. "Up to now;" 
writes Kurtz, "with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been 
sure of is that marriage means monogamy." But, he adds, "Gay marriage will 
break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy 
and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all." 

Evidence supporting this important argument could be seen in the 
controversy that erupted in San Francisco when the newly elected mayor, 
Gavin Newsom, decided to grant marriage licenses to samesex couples. 
When liberal judges and elected officials, first in San Francisco, and then in 
Vermont, Massachusetts, and Oregon, began flouting the law, issuing 
marriage licenses to homosexuals, Newsom decided it was his turn to set the 
pace of moral deregulation. But in the process, he violated the laws of 
California and the United States and provoked a very public battle that is 
still raging. 

On March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom's 
activities were illegal, and they called a halt to the granting of licenses. It 
was a victory for conservatives in that state. In the meantime, a circuit court 
of appeals for the state of Oregon granted a motion to stop the issuance of 
marriage licenses to homosexuals in that state as well. Polls continue to 
show that a solid majority of Americans oppose the idea of homosexual 
marriage, but some of them say that "civil unions" are OK. But this is an 
important lesson for all Americans. Homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 
are effectively the same thing, because they are in fact the legitimization of 
an immoral sexual union that undermines the entire social order. 

After the 2004 elections, Newsom was blamed by politicians on the Left 
for helping to provoke the conservative backlash at the polls, when voters in 
eleven states during the November election and three others in their state 


primaries overwhelmingly rejected legalization of gay marriage and unseated 
liberal office-holders who had supported same-sex marriages. Leaders of the 
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, among them, pointed to the fact that 
seventeen states were in the process of passing legislation to ensure that 
marriage remains a right reserved for heterosexual couples. And to top if off, 
many of those states had also passed bans on "civil unions." 

Mayor Newsom may have been reprimanded by the Court and by some of 
his friends, but he was unapologetic, and he made it clear he was not 
dissuaded from his agenda. On February 12, 2005, Newsom threw a big 
party for three thousand homosexuals on the steps of San Francisco's city 
hall, apparently to mock the law and the citizens of California. In 
recognizing all those who had received bogus marriage licenses in that city, 
Newsom proved that he was undeterred by any setback. And he said in his 
address to the crowd that, "This door is open, and nothing the president of 
the United States can do will ever shut this door." 

But not everybody was buying the mayor's rhetoric. Ben Lopez, who is one 
of our bright young lobbyists at the Traditional Values Coalition, responded 
to Newsom's tirade, saying, "You have three thousand people converging 
that are very misguided, three thousand people that fail to take up for the 
truth and fail to learn from the election we had in November. They are on 
the losing side of the issue." Ben's comments, quoted in a news account 
from the Associated Press, made it perfectly clear (as the AP's own headline 
suggested) that, "The people of California are on our side, and they are the 
silent majority." 


Whether you call it "same-sex marriage" or "civil unions;" any attempt to 
legalize and legitimize homosexual unions is a giant step down a very 
slippery slope. On the surface, such things may appear to be innocent and 
unimportant. After all, we're fair-minded people, and it only seems natural to 
give homosexuals some kind of clarity in their relationships with their 
homosexual partners. But this is a false argument, and deliberately 

The fact is, all fifty states in this country have laws concerning "power of 
attorney," and with a "power of attorney" document homosexuals don't 
need some other title, such as "civil unions;" to legitimize their relationship. 
If two men or two women want to leave their estate to each other or to give 
some kind of legal rights to another person concerning their health care, 
then they already have the right to do that through "power of attorney." The 
state gives any person so authorized the right to act on behalf of another 
person, especially when that person may not be capable or competent to act 
on their own behalf. 


"Civil marriage" is another term that is often confused with civil unions. 
Many people have been married by a civil union, which is to say that a 
justice of the peace, a judge, or some other sworn official has performed a 
legal marriage ceremony. They've had a civil marriage, as opposed to a 
church marriage with a minister present. But we shouldn't be confused by 
the term, because civil marriages, which are legal, have nothing to do with 
civil unions, which are not. Civil unions are men or women of the same sex 
asking for the same benefits that husbands and wives get when their legal 
marriage license is recorded by the local government official. 

Civil unions are very definitely a slippery slope. We don't want 
government to create civil unions because it only multiplies the confusion 
for the courts. And that's why we need a constitutional amendment that 
prohibits not only marriage between people of the same sex but also any 
other sexual arrangement receiving the same benefits granted by the state to 
a husband and wife in a lawful marriage. 

When we talk about these issues, we really need to understand what the 
Bible has to say about the sin of sexual promiscuity. There are some things 
that are so harmful and dangerous by their very nature that we need to be 
warned about them from our earliest years. A hot stove, for example, can be 
a dangerous thing, and children have to be taught from infancy not to touch 
a stove or they may bum their hands. It's the same way with morality. 
Morality is clearly defined for us by the Bible, and we need to teach our 
children what God's Word has to say about the dangers of sexual sin. 

If we choose not to obey God, and if we refuse to heed the warnings of 
the Word of God, then we put ourselves and our families at great personal 
risk. We do harm not only to ourselves, but we endanger those around us as 
well. If we despise the warnings of Scripture and fail to obey God's laws 
concerning sexual morality, we're like children who willfully ignore their 
parent's instmctions and, to our own sorrow and great pain, grab hold of a 
hot stove. 

Whenever I talk about promiscuity, I notice that people perk up. When I 
talk about fornication, adultery, or sexual hedonism-which is pornography 
and obscenity-they realize that those are real things. But I sometimes 
wonder, Do they really hear those warnings? In the average church today, 
young teenagers are allowed to wear clothing that exposes way too much 
bare flesh. I've seen young women who obviously have never been taught 
the most basic mles of personal modesty, and they show up on Sunday with 
half their bodies exposed. 

Naturally, this only stimulates the young men in the congregation, and 
that's not the purpose of church. When you go to a beach, you'll see people 
of all shapes and sizes, large and small, in their bathing suits, and that's no 
big deal because that's the environment for it. But in church your mind is 
supposed to be on the things of God, and if people show up looking like 
they're ready for the beach, it's distracting and inappropriate. This is one 


reason why orthodox Jews put the men on one side of the synagogue and 
women on the other, so that both of them can concentrate on the things of 
God and not on one another. 


The disorders associated with homosexuality are complicated and 
disturbing, and they wreak havoc on the natural order. The sex acts in which 
homosexuals engage open them up to unbelievable health risks. The 
difference between natural intercourse and unnatural anal intercourse is an 
enormous and deadly difference. Most people are uncomfortable talking 
about such things, but even though such talk is repellant to most audiences, 
it's essential that we speak openly and honestly about them. We are not used 
to this kind of talk, but avoiding the issue only allows the dangers of the 
homosexual lifestyle to masquerade under a cloak of silence, and we can see 
the consequence of that in AIDS wards and hospices all over America, as 
well as in the terrifying statistics of homosexual mortality. So honesty is 
needed in all these areas. 

In order to deal openly and honestly with the risks of the homosexual 
agenda, the Traditional Values Coalition has joined with a group of 
legislators, family policy organizations, and Christian activists to help 
promote a new constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of 
marriage-with no civil unions. In fact, the genius of this new proposal is that 
it actually contains two amendments, to be considered simultaneously, that 
provide extra guarantees for traditional marriage. 

Amendment XXVIII says, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only 
of the union of a man and a woman." The second, Amendment XXIX, says, 
"Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any 
unmarried person, or to a union other than a marriage of one man and one 
woman, the legal right of status of a married spouse" That means no "civil 
unions" The issues must be voted on by Congress. When they are passed by 
both houses, they will be sent to the states, where they will be considered 
by the voters, and, when approved by three-fourths of the states, eventually 
added to the Constitution itself. 

These amendments were actually drafted in strict accordance with the 
policies prescribed by the Constitution. When the first ten amendments to 
the Constitution were sent to the states in 1791, the state conventions were 
asked to consider twelve amendments at the same time. So there's precedent 
for sending more than one amendment at a time for the states to consider. 

When amendments are voted on by the states, it's not a constitutional 
convention at the state level; rather, it's a ratification convention. What this 
means is that politicians at the state and local level cannot alter the 
language of the proposed amendments; they can only ratify or not ratify, 


with "Yea" or "Nay," these two amendments. The people of each state have 
a vote, not just the legislature, and that's the principal difference between 
this initiative and others that were put forward in the twentieth century. 

No one believes the amendments can be passed without a fight. Chris 
Crain, who is the executive editor of the Washington Blade homosexual 
newspaper, says homosexual activists must fight for legalization of same-sex 
marriage as a means of gaining passage of what they really want, which is 
federal antidiscrimination laws giving them federal protections for their 
lifestyle. In other words, homosexuals want to wage war on any attempt to 
protect traditional marriage because they want to force homosexuality on 
the rest of us. What they're after are more hate crimes and 
antidiscrimination laws to punish those who refuse to acknowledge and 
endorse the homosexual agenda. 

In that publication, Crain said, "Any leader of any gay rights organization 
who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the 
fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the 
position." Evan Wolfson, who is director of a homosexual group called 
Freedom to Many, has said, "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only 
one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? ... Marriage is not just 
about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all." 

Clearly, creating a family unit that contributes to the good of society has 
nothing to do with what homosexuals really want. Mitchel Raphael, editor of 
the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, admits, "Ambiguity is a good word 
for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for maniage if I thought 
gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the 
traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We 
should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." All 
of which means that those of us who do care about preserving traditional 
marriage must be prepared to defend it with a similar voracity. 


How can anyone reading the crass and calculated comments of homosexual 
activists like those cited above be expected to show respect for their 
agenda? The homosexual lifestyle is, at the very least, vulgar and repugnant. 
The only way Americans have been persuaded to tolerate homosexuals in 
their midst is because of the mantra, "What they do behind closed doors is 
nobody's business" The minute homosexuals come out from behind those 
closed doors and begin to invade the public square with their vile behaviors, 
tolerance and acceptance fade quickly. The last thing homosexuals want is 
for middle America to be reminded what the homosexual community is 
actually doing. There's nothing "civil" or "right" about it. 

As columnist Kelly Boggs points out in one recent editorial, "Images evoke 


emotions that in turn enable a viewer to identify with, or reject, a product, 
person, or idea." Positive images, as every advertiser knows, attract 
attention and gain support. Negative images, however, repel and lead to 
disapproval. Politicians have certainly learned this lesson. But ever since 
Gavin Newsom and his ilk on the East and West Coasts began pandering to 
the homosexual right to "same-sex marriage," most of the images the world 
has seen of homosexual couples pledging their love for one another have 
been anything but attractive. If anything, these photos remind us why 
homosexual marriage is a bad idea. 

The mainstream media is supportive of "homosexual rights" and "gay 
marriage," and television networks and periodicals have gone to great 
lengths to portray homosexuality in a positive light. But despite all this 
journalistic advocacy, consumer polls continue to show that a majority of 
Americans-in some surveys as high as 70 percent-are opposed to the idea of 
homosexual marriage. Even in states where marriage licenses have been 
issued, including Massachusetts, California, Oregon, New Mexico, New York, 
and Illinois, the citizens are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. 

As Kelly Boggs says, "The daily parade of grooms kissing grooms and 
brides embracing brides might well be too much for grassroots Americans to 
handle." And I believe that's the case. Americans tend to be "open 
minded" about the choices other people make. We don't always want to be 
our brother's moral keeper, and the trend of political correctness has 
persuaded too many, perhaps, that those in the moral majority have no right 
to correct others who defy social norms. We're willing to "live and let live," 
up to a point. But it may well be that, with homosexuality being thrust into 
our faces almost every day, a lot of people are ready to rebel. 

Evidence of this sort of backlash could be seen in the results of the 2004 
general election, in which "values voters" spoke with a resounding and 
unified voice. According to exit polls, white religious conservatives-who 
represented approximately 17 percent of the electorate in 1996 and just 14 
percent in 2000-accounted for more than 23 percent of all voters in the 
2004 election. Fully 78 percent of those people voted for George W. Bush 
and the Republican ticket. And of particular note. Catholic voters supported 
Bush over his Catholic opponent, John Kerry, by a margin of 52 to 47 
percentB That's a new and important trend. 

In the South, once a Democrat stronghold, voters told pollsters they were 
concerned about the assault on marriage coming from the homosexual 
community. Southerners believe in strong families, strong community bonds, 
and laws that protect them from liberal politicians who want to run their 
lives from Washington. These people said they wanted to protect their 
children from indoctrination in the schools and sex education curricula that 
expose kids to even greater risks. They were against the collapse of sexual 
mores and the liberal policies of the National Education Association 
supporting condom distribution and easy access to abortion. They want 


"parental notification" laws enacted, and they want left-wing politics taken 
out of the classrooms and out of their lives. 

Because they believed that George W. Bush speaks their language, and 
because he's a man of strong religious convictions, these values voters gave 
the president 51 percent of their votes nationwide, and fully 58 percent in 
the South. Republican candidates won all five open Senate seats in the 
South, as well as those in Oklahoma and South Dakota-for a net gain of four 
seats in the Senate. And one of their own told the Democrats why it 
happened. When he rose to challenge the direction of his party. Senator Zell 
Miller spoke for the nation. The liberal agenda of Democrats today, he said, 
is out of touch with most Americans. 

In his best-selling book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a 
Conservative Democrat, Senator Miller made it clear that homosexuals and 
other special interest groups have virtually destroyed his party and doomed 
them to obscurity. And that was a major part of their revolt in November 

What values voters have told America is that they still care deeply about 
preserving marriage and safeguarding the family. They care about protecting 
their children from violent and vulgar entertainment, and they want to make 
sure that their children are taught the same values in the schoolroom that 
they are being taught at home. Values voters believe in the moral standards 
that made America great, and they believe that homosexuality has no place 
in that worldview. If more Americans would wake up to that reality, I 
believe we would see a renewal of culture, a renewal of society, and an 
explosion of faithwhich is something for which I've been praying for many 




The way out of this mess is not going to be easy. Sleeping is easy; 
vigilance has a price. Fundamentally, if the Church is not to be 
caught asleep again, we have to prioritize our activities, and devote 
more resources to both education and activism in the defense of 
life. This work cannot be a hobby; it will require us to give 
everything. But that should sound familiar to Christians. 


I CAN'T REMEMBER A time in my life when the church has been under such 
intense pressure from the surrounding culture. We're being threatened by the 
courts, the media, the schools and colleges, the cultural elites, and even by 
schisms and divisions within the church itself. We are witnessing a collapse 
of public morality and signs of widespread disrespect for the gospel and the 
message of redemption. Historically, the church has always grown stronger 
in adversity, and the great strength of the body of Christ has been its ability 
to endure persecution. By returning to our roots, the church has been able to 
expand its ministry and transform the lives of people in all walks of life. But 
are we still able to do that? Do we still believe in the power of renewal? As 
we enter this new millennium with controversies raging all around us, do 
Christians still have the capacity to be salt and light to this hurting world? 

On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a 
sentence of capital punishment may not be administered by any court to 
criminal defendants under the age of eighteen. Regardless of the 
circumstances and regardless of the degree of premeditation, prior arrests, or 
the brutality of the offense in question, five justices, who consulted foreign 
laws and unratified international treaties for justification for their ruling, 
made law from the bench that ignores the United States Constitution and 
the statutes of every state where the death penalty has been declared a valid 
option for capital crimes committed by juveniles. 

On the same day the Supreme Court began hearing arguments to 
determine whether or not the Ten Commandments may be displayed on 
public property. The point of contention was a six-foot granite monument 
that has stood on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol since 1961, along 
with two others from a Kentucky courthouse. Verdicts of the lower courts 
were divided on the issue, so the Supreme Court decided to take the case 


that was brought to them on appeal by the ACLU. The last time the Court 
considered a comparable case was Stone v. Graham, in 1980, when five 
justices struck down Kentucky's law allowing the Ten Commandments to be 
displayed in public school classrooms. 

The Bush administration asked the Court to decide in favor of allowing 
the citizens of these states to decide such issues for themselves, while on 
the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union has gathered the usual 
suspects to join them in calling for removal. So where does this leave us? 
Does the White House have a prayer of standing up to the mighty ACLU? 
Will the church rise and let her voice be heard? Will the American people 
rise to the occasion in defense of their constitutionally guaranteed 
freedoms? I may as well ask if the sun will rise tomorrow in the West. We've 
been here too many times before, and the ACLU knows it. 

The fact is, the American people resoundingly support the idea of 
displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, whether it's in 
courthouses, schoolrooms, or public parks. Polls have shown for decades 
that while the people believe in a separation of church and state in general 
terms, they have no problem with honoring our nation's religious heritage or 
acknowledging the biblical basis of our Constitution and our laws. 

But if this is true, why do we find ourselves constantly fighting groups like 
the ACLU in courtrooms all across America? And why do we find ourselves 
losing these battles time after time? The annual Gallup Poll of religion in 
American has shown conclusively for more than forty years that upwards of 
85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. So what 
difference does it make? If this is true, and Christians make up a solid 
majority in every poll, then why is it the ungodly who seem to make all the 


George Gallup Jr. and Timothy Jones wrote a book a few years ago about 
the state of religion in America called The Next American Spirituality: 
Finding God in the Twenty-first Century. Drawing on the findings of the 
Gallup organization's exhaustive research on this issue over many years, the 
authors pointed to the growing emphasis on spirituality in modem culture, 
but they warned that, both inside and outside the Christian community, the 
level of spirituality is shallow and lacks healthy roots. In one pointed 
observation they say, "Americans face constant temptations to pass over the 
wisdom of the ancients in favor of the gum of the month" 

During much of the twentieth century, these authors tell us, most 
Americans practiced their faith in a traditional Judeo-Christian framework. 
Most, in fact, remained in the religious traditions they had grown up with 
and were comfortable with that. Today, however, the institutional church is 


much less important, and young people in particular are much more likely to 
seek spiritual guidance from self-help books or the Oprah Winfrey Show than 
to consult a pastor or Bible teacher. Books ranging from New Age favorites 
like Embraced by the Light and The Celestine Prophecy show up on the same 
shelves with Christian titles such as The Prayer of Jabez, the Left Behind 
series, and The Purpose-Driven Life. They shoot to the top of the bestseller 
lists, but many readers can't tell the difference between them. It's all about 

The flurry of interest in angels in the nineties is a good example. Angels 
are certainly a biblical topic, but many people who followed that fad were 
just as excited about tarot cards, horoscopes, and the occult. The level of 
spiritual discernment is shockingly low in today's culture, and the 
consequence is that a lot of people are poorly equipped to deal with the 
complexities of modem life. So where do we lay the blame for this 

Dr. D. A. Carson, a professor of theology in Deerfield, Illinois, has written 
an important book called The Gagging of God, which analyzes the impact of 
pluralism and moral relativism on contemporary culture. In particular, he 
looks at the way postmodernism, deconstmctionism, and other trends in 
philosophy have affected the church over the last forty years. In the book, 
Carson points out that, "In many parts of the country, we cannot assume 
any biblical knowledge on the part of our hearers at all: the most elementary 
Bible stories are completely unknown. Furthermore, the situation is getting 

We know it's tme, but is this the fault of the National Education 
Association? Should we blame the ACLU or the Supreme Court? Or should 
we, instead, be looking in the mirror? A recent survey by the Bama Research 
Group suggests that the trend for the foreseeable future is that the popular 
culture will have much greater influence on American society than the 
Christian church. The name Jesus Christ means little to many young people 
today, and evangelical Christianity no longer ranks among the top ten 
"change agents" in our society. The reason for this state of affairs, according 
to Bama's report, is not just the attack from outside the church but the 
ignorance on the inside. This situation is due in large part to a shameful lack 
of spiritual understanding and biblical knowledge and a failure to faithfully 
apply the biblical command to engage the culture. 

Even if such charges are exaggerated, most of us would have to admit that 
there's an element of truth to them. Our churches have grown large and 
comfortable. We have programs. We have expansion plans. We have baseball 
tournaments and potluck suppers. We have gifted teachers and speakers, 
tapes and television, and full-color brochures that sparkle in the racks at the 
door. But what about the men and women who fill the pews? Do they 
understand Christ's command to work before the night comes when no one 
can work? Are they concerned about the eradication of our godly heritage by 


the schools and the courts? Do they understand what's happening to their 
children and the world they inhabit? Or are they, perhaps, too busy to 

The Holy Spirit is willing for us to respond and overcome evil with good, 
but too often the flesh is weak. And too many of us simply fail to respond to 
the challenges that are right there before us. I admit that there are issues to 
which I'd rather not respond. It can be intimidating to get involved in some 
of them when there's so much hostility and resentment. But I also know that 
unless I stand for what I perceive to be God's purpose and His plan, then I 
can only blame myself when bad things happen. 

This is true particularly with the issue of homosexuality, where virtually 
the entire secular culture is waging war against the Christian resistance. As 
we have seen over and over in these pages, the agenda of the homosexual 
lobby is based on the idea that the best way to silence their critics is to 
respond immediately, loudly, and passionately in order to terrorize and 
demoralize the opposition. It's a tactic straight out of Adolf Hitler's own 
playbook, and it works. But knowing what we know now, will we give in to 
those tactics when so much is at stake? 

As we saw in the Supreme Court's verdict in Roper v. Simmons (cited 
earlier), we can count on unjust judges to continue waging war against 
moral accountability. We can count on those who defend freedom of speech 
for pomographers and atheists to continue their attacks on our 
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. But there's a large and 
powerful consensus among the values voters that things have gone too far. 
We are at a watershed moment, and if enough of us will rise to defend our 
historic God-given beliefs and values, miracles can happen. 

If those who know the truth will rise to the occasion, nothing can stop us. 
I will even go so far as to say that on many of the most critical issues, our 
victory is assured if the church will make up her mind to engage the enemy 
within our culture and begin to work for what we know to be right. One way 
is to pass legislation in favor of a constitutional amendment affirming 
marriage to be the legal union of one man and one woman-with no civil 
unions-we need just 290 of 435 members of the House of Representatives 
and 67 senators to vote our way. This can be done with a hard-nosed 
lobbying effort supported by the active involvement and faithful prayers of 
God's people. But this means that believers will have to be willing to step up 
to the plate, to dedicate time, energy, and money to this vital issue. But I 
have to ask: Are you willing to do that? And will you do it? 


Educating the church is important, of course. Most people don't really like to 
deal with these issues, and homosexuals have made this issue especially 


unpleasant. But we have to become comfortable talking about these things. 
Because when enough of us stand up and shout, and when we simply refuse 
to compromise on matters of life and death, our battles can be won. 

In his important book The Naked Public Square, Richard John Neuhaus 
shows how the marginalization of religious faith in government and public 
affairs has created social, political, and moral problems for American 
culture. With examples from the media and academic circles, Neuhaus 
argues that the efforts to ban every expression of religious faith from public 
view has led not only to a "naked public square" but also to overreaching by 
government and other secular institutions as they seek to fill the ethical void 
left by the absence of religion and moral values. Neuhaus writes that "the 
idea is widely accepted that religion is something between an individual and 
his God," and many Americans have been convinced that "religion is the 
business of church and home and has no place in public space" But this is 
fundamentally untrue and far from the principles of republican self- 
government prescribed by the Constitution. 

Furthermore, Neuhaus predicted that there would be further declines in 
American democracy if citizens fail to recognize what we've lost and take 
steps to restore the civilizing effects of religion upon society. We have a 
Christian duty to be engaged in the controversy of ideas, and any further 
privatization of religion in the public square can only do greater harm to the 

In 1954, then Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed a bad bill through the 
Congress in order to prevent Christian groups from speaking freely on moral 
and political issues-including, especially, the endorsement of political 
candidates. Prior to 1954 pastors and churches had the right to speak openly 
about such things, without fear of losing their tax-exempt status. But for 
personal, and I believe deeply immoral, reasons, the law was changed to 
punish Christians who had questioned the legitimacy of Lyndon Johnson's 
senatorial campaign that year. 

The IRS prohibition was invented by Johnson as a way of taking revenge 
on two nonprofit groups in his home state of Texas who had lobbied against 
his reelection. The history of that shameful act is part of the public record 
now, and it's certainly well known to those who have followed Johnson's 
corrupt rise to power. The book A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in 
Illegitimate Power, by J. Evetts Haley, examines the former senator's ethics 
and the questionable tactics he used in winning his bid for the Senate in 
1948. The Traditional Values Coalition has been working on legislation for 
several years to attempt to right that historic wrong by restoring free speech 
to pastors and allowing church leaders, who have every right to discuss the 
moral content of our laws, to speak freely about positions of local, state, 
and federal candidates on these moral issues. 

This legislation we are calling the Bright Line Bill. It would repeal fully and 
completely the language Lyndon Johnson drafted in 1954. In its place we 


want to say that, yes, churches may be involved in political activity as long 
as it does not exceed a certain amount. That would be interpreted as 20 
percent of their gross income, facilities, programs, staff time, and the like. 
Why shouldn't a pastor be allowed to speak about issues of local or national 
concern? Why shouldn't church members be allowed to have a bulletin 
board that says we support this or that candidate for public office, or that 
this or that issue concerns us? They might say, we feel strongly about this 
issue, and here's some reading materials for you to prayerfully consider. The 
public affairs committee of the church could post photos and biographical 
information about the candidates, or acknowledge their representatives in 
city government, the state legislature, or the United States Congress. That's 
all we're asking for. 


The biblical basis for the church exercising her moral authority in a secular 
government has been well founded since pre-Revolutionary times in this 
country. As early as the 1600s we had documents such as the Fundamental 
Orders of Connecticut, which was a constitution drafted by Thomas Hooker 
and Roger Ludlow, that made it perfectly clear that the Word of God would 
prevail in public policy. The document begins with these words: 

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise 
disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of 
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, 
and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the 
River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and 
well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of 
God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a 
people there should bean orderly and decent Government 
established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs 
of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore 
associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or 
Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such 
as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into 
Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and 
preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 
which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, 
which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced 
amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed 
according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be 
made, ordered, and decreed as followeth: 


And the document goes on from there. Deeply pious, profoundly serious, 
but absolutely certain that maintaining an orderly civil society could only be 


accomplished by governing with the will and providence of God. What does 
this say about the Ten Commandments? Does anyone believe these men and 
women would have thought that ancient law to be an "unlawful 
establishment of religion"? 

Stop and consider what these men and women had encountered in their 
voyage to the New World. They had left their homes in Europe and given up 
everything they had ever known. They crossed a wide and hostile sea in tiny 
wooden ships. Then, when the Pilgrims arrived within sight of land in 1620, 
they were blown completely off course by as much as five hundred miles. 
They were supposed to land in Northern Virginia, but they ended up in 
Massachusetts Bay instead. The king had granted them rights to land in 
Virginia, so when they realized they didn't have a clear charter to the 
territory of Massachusetts Bay, they assembled on board ship and composed 
the document we know today as the Mayflower Compact, which says: 

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, 
the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the 
Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of 
the Faith, e&. 

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of 
the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a 
voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; 
do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of 
God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together 
into a civil Body Politick.... 

And they concluded that historic covenant with the words: 

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at 
Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign 
Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, 
and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620. 

It was an elegant statement of purpose and a clear effort to reach a 
mutual and legal accord. But, by all means, don't miss what they ultimately 
accomplished with those words. In the document the Pilgrim Fathers say 
four key things that are now part of our Christian heritage: 

1. "In the name of God, Amen" That's the first thing they said. 

2. We have traveled to these shores for the glory of God. 

3. We have come to these shores to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

4. We covenant and combine ourselves together into a "civil Body Politick" 


And the reason for these things was "for our better Ordering and 
Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid" In other words, the 
citizens of Massachusetts Bay were the legal authority of the land. They were 
also the church; the church was the law and the Bible was their text. There 
were one hundred two passengers on the Mayflower, including the forty-one 
Puritans who signed that historic document. Each man had a voice and a 
vote, and clearly they intended for this to be the method of administering 
the law and the business of their community. 

For these men and women, the body of believers was the true and 
obvious body politic. They had made a covenant with God. Were there non- 
Christians on that boat? Yes, there were sailors, of course, and a few others. 
But the Mayflower Compact became a model for the government of New 
England, and the truth that cries out to us today is that there was no 
separation of church and state. Every governor who took office in the 
colonies was inaugurated with an election sermon. He swore to uphold his 
duty by placing his right hand on the Bible and taking the oath of office 
before Almighty God. 


The tradition of swearing on the Bible continues to this day. There are so 
many places where we see the natural relationship of God and government. 
But, of course, all of this is contrary to the aims of atheists, civil libertarians, 
and especially promoters of the homosexual agenda. That's why, when 
pinned against the wall by an immoral agenda in the 2004 election, the 22 
percent of voters identified now as "values voters" rose up to express their 
views in no uncertain terms. So now when we see people around the world 
turning the other way-such as those in New Zealand, which announced 
recently that they are going to pass a civil unions measure-it's clear that we 
must be firm and decisive in the face of strong opposition. 

If the homosexual agenda were ever carried out fully, it would utterly 
destroy the dynamic creative plan of God. And along with it, it would 
destroy the whole basis of redemption, because salvation requires 
repentance and forgiveness. If evil is called good, and if there is no 
confession of sin, then there can be no remission of sins. When I considered 
these things it made me think: If the Antichrist were look- ingfor a vehicle to 
serve as his primary weapon against God's power and dominion in this 
world, what better weapon could he find? The homosexual agenda would be 
the perfect vehicle for the Antichrist. First, he would take advantage of the 
slothfulness of the church. Second, he would benefit by the widespread 
doctrine of political correctness that has swept into the schools, the courts, 
the world of business, and many other places in our society. Look at what 
has happened to the moral framework of American culture in just the last 
quarter century! 


In 2 Thessalonians 2 we read about a restraining force that resists the 
power of evil in the world. We have the assurance that as long as that 
restraining force is active, evil will subside. But if the restraint becomes 
passive, evil will ultimately dominate. How much clearer could it be? We 
know who's restraining and what has to be done. The Holy Spirit is calling us 
to take a stand as Christ's agents on this earth; that's our solemn duty. So 
who stands against the threats of great evil from the antiChristian system? 
The church. In other words, if you and I, as followers of Jesus Christ, fail to 
take a stand and resist the forces of darkness in this world, our sloth and 
ineptitude will be our undoing. 

I'm certain that words like these will sound rash or extreme to some 
readers. I know they sound outrageous to our enemies who will read them as 
well. But let's take stock for a moment. Are there forces in the world that 
long to eradicate our legacy of faith? Are there people who would be glad to 
do away with documents such as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 
the Mayflower Compact, the Northwest Ordinance, and others that proclaim 
the deeply held religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and insist that this 
was never a Christian nation? You know the answer. 

In an article entitled "America's Communist Lawyer's Union," author and 
columnist Jack Kinsella recently took a critical look at the ACLU's tactics 
and the battles they've won in recent years. Under the guise of "protecting 
American civil rights;' he said, the ACLU has sued to: 

■ Halt the singing of Christmas carols in public facilities 

■ Deny tax-exempt status for churches 

■ Get rid of all military chaplains 

■ Remove all Christian symbols from public property 

■ Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time 

■ Remove the words "In God We Trust" from our coins 

■ Remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance 

■ Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists as 

The ACLU is clearly the most powerful advocate for the homosexual 
agenda and was also the principal supporter of the Supreme Court's 
horrendous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Four years later, the ACLU 
launched a "Reproductive Freedom Project," promoting unrestricted 
abortion on demand with funding of more than $2 million. In 1986 the 
ACLU began its "Lesbian and Gay Rights Project;" part of which was 
defending the right of homosexual AIDS patients to keep their disease secret. 


meaning that not only their sexual partners but also medical professionals 
would be kept in the dark and needlessly exposed to the deadly disease. 

In May 2000, Arizona Governor Jane Hull issued a proclamation 
celebrating the birth of Buddha with public support from the ACLU. Two 
years earlier, however, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring 
Bible Week in that state, the ACLU sued, because, as they said at the time, it 
was a violation of the separation of church and state. So much for 
consistency, and so much for deceit. But, finally, it shouldn't go unnoticed 
that in 1981, then President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of 
Freedom to ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, referring to the atheist and former 
Communist organizer as " a champion of human and civil rights" 


No one would ever say that victory in such a war will ever come easy, but I 
can say that the victory will never be won until the church awakes from her 
slumber and becomes the visible expression of Jesus Christ, raised from the 
dead in the power of the Holy Spirit, in this fallen world. The homosexual 
agenda will never be defeated by mere laws. Such people are lawless. 
Furthermore, the plan to indoctrinate and violate America's children will 
never be stopped by adopting the "live and let live" strategy of the spiritually 
deceived pacifists in our midst. This war will only be won by taking the 
battle to the enemy and taking back the territory we've lost. How do I know 
this? Let me give you one good example. 

Delegate Don Dwyer is a legislator in the state of Maryland who became 
acquainted with my work and the mission of the Traditional Values Coalition 
through our video Gay Rights, Special Rights. He told me when we met in 
Washington for the first time that homosexuality was not an issue he wanted 
to engage. It wasn't a comfortable issue for him, and it was so highly 
charged politically that he would rather let someone else fight the battle. But 
having seen the film and understanding what it meant, his conscience 
wouldn't allow him to turn away. 

Because of the importance of this issue, and because of what Delegate 
Dwyer discovered and then went on to accomplish, I would like to relate in 
some length his words from a recent interview. I can think of no better 
example of what I would like to say to you in this chapter to illustrate the 
importance of waking the church to its mission of renewal. 

I asked him how he became interested in this work, and he told me: "A 
pastor handed me a copy of the film Gay Rights, Special Rights and asked if 
I'd seen it, and I said I hadn't. I knew of the Traditional Values Coalition, 
and I knew that you were one of the strong leaders in the battle to stop the 
homosexual movement. But I didn't know much more than that. So I 
watched the film, and I had the reaction that I think a lot of people must 


have. I realized I didn't understand the agenda. I never understood until that 
moment what was going on. But that tape, in just thirty-eight minutes, 
showed me how severe the problem really is, and for the first time I 
understood that the homosexual agenda is directed at our children. 

"That was a wake-up call for me;" he told me. "But then I realized I had to 
do something about what I had learned, and I realized I had to take that film 
and show it to pastors, church leaders, and men and women with influence 
all over my state as quickly as I could in order to wake the sleeping giant in 
this country. To wake up the church is to wake a sleeping giant, and that 
was my goal. 

"Because of my position as a legislator in the state of Maryland;" he said, 
"I felt I could probably get people to listen. And over the last several months 
I've seen that happen. I would say, conservatively, that from five hundred to 
seven hundred pastors have now seen the film and have heard me speak 
about the issue of homosexuality in our state. My view is that the issue of 
same-sex marriage is antithetical to our American view of law and 
government. I believe as our Founding Fathers did, first of all, that there is a 
Creator God. Our rights come from Him, and the purpose of government is 
to protect and defend those God-given rights. 

"I have been all around the state talking about these things;' the delegate 
said. "The format is that I show the film and then, immediately afterward, I 
address church leaders, pastors, deacons, and others and express my deep 
sorrow that for the last forty years the church has remained silent on issues 
that we've been led to believe are political in nature, but which we know are 
really the essence of what the church is required by God to confront. 

"In my talks," he said, "I hit hard on what has happened to this country 
since prayer and Bible reading were removed from the schools. That was a 
national tragedy, and for the most part the church was silent. Many people 
wrung their hands and prayed. They wondered how it could have happened 
in America, but it was too late. The Court had already ruled, and by the time 
the church decided to say something, it was all over. Then, ten years later, 
Christians sat home when the Supreme Court, mere men, declared that 
murder was no longer murder. We now have the innocent blood of m illi ons 
upon millions of innocent unborn children on our hands." 


Because of the urgency of the issue. Delegate Dwyer told me, he has had to 
be very direct and sometimes confrontational in his approach. "I have been 
condemning the church and its leaders, expressing my outrage that they 
have been deceived into silence on these moral issues, believing the lie that 
these are political issues and therefore the church has no right to engage in 
them. In essence, the church has been deceived into silence. But today-now 


that we can all see how far the agenda has gone-things are beginning to 

"I believe I've been witnessing a modern-day miracle;' he told me, "as I've 
been bringing together pastors from all denominations, all ethnic and racial 
backgrounds, and from all parts of the state. Protestant, Catholic, black, 
white, Hispanic, Korean, Chinese, all of us coming together under the same 
roof because of our concern for our children and grandchildren. We know 
now what's at stake if same-sex marriage ever becomes the law of the land" 

I asked him if he's had criticism from those on the other side of the issue, 
and he paused for several seconds. "Yes;" he said, "I've been accused of 
wanting to Christianize the state. In fact, the Speaker of the House in the 
Maryland legislature wrote a newspaper column in which he accused me of 
wanting to Christianize the state. That was a great honor, but it wasn't really 
my goal. It's not my job to Christianize the state: that God's job. But it is my 
job to speak the truth on moral issues, which happen also to be Christian 
issues. And it's my job to speak about the Christian heritage and founding of 
our great state" 

The delegate related a bit of his state's history, going back to Lord 
Baltimore's charter from the king, and he told me, "This state has a rich 
Christian history, founded by Catholics. It was called the 'Free State,' 
established to provide a haven for those who had experienced religious 
persecution because of their doctrinal differences. You can read about it in 
the recorded history of the state of Maryland, all the way back to the Charter 
of 1632 where it's clearly stated that Maryland was established as a Christian 
colony. The territory was granted by the king on the grounds that the first 
governor. Lord Baltimore, was ' animated with a laudable and pious Zeal for 
extending the Christian Religion.' 

"As I've gone to church meetings in various parts of the state;" he said, 
"I've witnessed repentance by pastors after they've heard this message. I've 
been encouraged by that, and humbled by it as well. I've been humbled 
because it has nothing to do with me personally but with what God is saying 
to us about these issues. I'm not a pastor; I'm a common man whose heart 
has been convicted by God to talk about things we know to be true-things 
that we know are founded in the Christian understanding of salvation and 
eternal judgment. It's not that I want to do this: it's that I can't not do it. I 
have to speak the truth regardless of what the political or other consequence 
might be. Anyone who lives a Christian life knows that when God calls you, 
you can't tell Him ' No,' because He's just going to keep turning you around 
until you do what's He's called you and prepared you to do" 


"I started out giving this message to pastors and church leaders, but one day 


a pastor called and asked if I would speak to his congregation. He wanted to 
bring the entire adult membership together for it. I said I would come, but I 
was concerned. I didn't know what the reaction was going to be or how we 
would deal with it. So he said, ' I think the members of my church need to 
see this,' so I agreed and we did it. We had about 120 people in the 
sanctuary that day, all members of the church, and they were all ages, 
elderly, middle-aged, and young adults, but no children were present. 

"When we finished showing the film," he said, "and when I finished 
reproving the church for its complacency, there was a surreal silence in the 
room. Finally the pastor said to me, 'I think we need to cancel the rest of 
today's program.' He had planned another program, but he said, ' I think we 
just need to pray.' And as he began to pray, men wept openly because of the 
sorrow they felt in their hearts for what they had just seen. The vile sin of 
homosexuality had been revealed to Christ's church, and their hearts were 

"This has been such an emotional experience," Delegate Dwyer told me, 
"seeing the tears of sorrow, the prayers of repentance, and hearing those 
fervent prayers. We prayed that God's people would wake up and stand up 
boldly on the front lines for this issue. It was encouraging to me. 
Experiences like that give me the strength to continue when the pressures 
mount against me and what I'm doing. As you can image," he said, "the 
argument on the street is that I'm filled with hate and that I'm spreading 
hate and fear among the churches. OK, I'm guilty as charged. I'm spreading 
hatred of the homosexual activists and I'm spreading my own fear of what's 
going to happen to this nation if God's people don't stand up now. I'm guilty 
of spreading hate and fear, but it's their hate and my fear. 

"Before I was elected to public office, " he said, "one of the things I 
realized was that there is a lot of temptation in this place. I also knew, 
however, that I have a Christian heart and I will do everything I can to stay 
on God's path. But the first thing I did was to set up an accountability group 
of six godly men who have promised to beat me within an inch of my life if I 
ever come off of God's path. And one of those men is my own brother. Every 
time I meet with pastors, I ask them to hold me accountable. I know Satan 
will try to trip me up, and I'm made of human flesh. These battles are the 
ones that make Satan the angriest, so I don't ask for that accountability out 
of vanity. I mean it sincerely." 

As we neared the end of our conversation, we stood together and prayed, 
and I thanked this brave man for his courage and conviction. He smiled and 
said, "I appreciate your encouragement, Rev. Lou, because it's not enough 
just to be a Christian when you serve in public office as I do. You have to be 
committed, and you have to be protected. I have people all over the country 
who pray for me, and it's rewarding to get notes as we sometimes do from 
people in Oregon or California or other parts of the country saying, 
' Delegate Dwyer, we're praying for you, we love you, and we want to 
encourage you to just keep doing the work of the Lord' That's such an 


encouragement, especially for my wife. It's so helpful for her, when we get 
those hateful calls, e-mails, and letters, as we often do, to know that there 
are godly people out there standing with us" I assured Delegate Dwyer that 
he would be continuously in our prayers as well, and that we were grateful 
for his example of not merely talking the talk but also walking the walk. 


Not everyone can do what Don Dwyer is doing; not many have his gifts or 
passion for sharing this important message. But the fact is, we can all do 
something, and many of us simply aren't doing enough. What I have tried to 
say in this chapter is not that the church is useless or that she has failed to 
serve in many important ways. Most of our churches, even those where the 
flame of righteousness is flickering or has already gone out, can serve in 
useful ways, if nothing else by providing a sense of community for God's 
hungry and weary children. But I am saying that the sinfulness and 
brokenness of the world at this hour could never have happened if the 
church had been fully alert, awake, and standing at her post. 

When I look around this country (and I travel constantly), I see many 
vibrant, exciting, and transforming churches where miracles are happening 
and lives are being changed. There are thousands of churches in the 
Traditional Values Coalition family who understand their calling to be salt 
and light in the world, and many of these are fully engaged on this issue. 
But, I'm sorry to say, I see other churches as well that are fat and lazy and 
self-satisfied, and many of these are so full of the world's values they're no 
threat to the forces of darkness that surround us. 

For those churches, I have a word of warning. If your church doesn't get 
over its addiction to the easy life, accumulating wealth in the material world 
and ignoring the signs of crippling decay all around us, your children may 
not have a future worth defending. For the last fifty years too many church 
leaders have run from their responsibility of preparing Christian soldiers for 
spiritual combat, and the result has been the ruin of this once Christian 
nation. Our homes and schools and workplaces are in disarray. Homosexuals 
are corrupting our youth. We wonder who has done this to us. The answer is 
abundantly clear: we have done it to ourselves. When the church fails to be 
the church, they fail to keep Christ's own commission to seek and save those 
who are lost, including many who sit in their pews every Sunday. 

This is my message, but I'm happy to say that I'm not the only one who is 
saying these things. The gifted priest and renowned Bible expositor Father 
John Corapi has called the apathy of the church a moral disgrace, and he 
agrees that it is high time to wake up this sleeping giant. Father Corapi has 

Morality is not a subjective construct. Rather, it is inscribed in the 


heart and mind of every person. It is our business to accept our 
noble and holy lot as persons, and to act in accord with nature, 
not rebel against it. We run the risk today in our once largely 
Christian country of falling into that class of idolaters which St. 

Paul bitterly denounced because of their refusal to worship God 
and accept his teaching, despite their knowledge of him (See 
Romans 1:20-27). 

It's important for believers to understand what this theologian is saying. 
We are all called to act in accordance with our nature and the sensibility 
that Christ has implanted in our hearts. When we rebel against our calling by 
trying to ignore the sin and evil around us, or simply by tolerating the 
corruptions of the world, we make ourselves enemies of God. 

Many of us will recall that dramatic passage where the apostle Paul lays 
out the charges against those who tolerate evil in this way. He writes: 

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For 
men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, 
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 
unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, 
despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure 
rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying 
its power. 

-2 TIMOTHY 3:1-5, NKJV 

The apostle tells us, "From such people turn away!" He writes elsewhere, 
"For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what 
communion has light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14, NKJv). What a tragic 
irony for believers who have the word of truth to be sidelined by the 
deceptions of this world. As John Corapi adds: 

We are not to be confused by empty rhetoric and the fallacy of 
what is "politically correct," especially when that is largely 
determined by the mind of a culture which will go down in history 
as grandly technological, yet singularly irrational; able to travel far 
into outer space, yet amazingly crippled in its ability to travel 
inwardly in order to be in touch with the high and lofty demands 
of its own moral nature. We should be mightily wary of a culture, 
rightly described as a "culture of death," that seeks to tell us how 
to live, imposing laws that are illicit and mores that are 
immoral. 13 

It is my hope and fervent prayer that, before it's too late and the agenda 
of death and destruction has overcome us utterly, God's people will rise. 
This work cannot be merely a hobby. My dear friend and a great defender of 
the unborn. Father Frank Pavone, understands the urgency of the hour, and 


his words, which I've quoted in the epigraph to this chapter, are powerful 
and true. "Sleeping is easy; vigilance has a price" Our task at this late hour is 
to stand against the hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places, to wage war 
on the evil that would gladly corrupt and destroy all that is holy and good. 

We cannot act as if this were just a hobby. It will demand every ounce of 
moral fiber and resolve we can muster. Are we up to it? Very much in accord 
with Father Pavone's words above, Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of 
freedom is eternal vigilance" You can be sure that those who will not defend 
their freedom are destined to lose it. But will the church awaken from her 
slumber and rise to this challenge? I pray to God that she will. 




There are risks in standing your ground, and there are also great 
opportunities if we're willing to accept the challenges before us. 
But this means that every believer must make a commitment to 
fight the good fight. We need to call America back to the values 
enshrined in our great U.S. Constitution, and we need to pray that 
millions will rise up for such a time as this. 


THE NOTION OF a "separation of church and state" got its start, as most 
people now know, in a letter from then President Thomas Jefferson to a 
group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, assuring them that the 
government would never infringe on their freedom of worship. Those of us 
who have been fighting to restore moral balance in this country are well 
aware of that document written in 1802. But there's a lesser known aspect 
of the story, which is that it was a virulent strain of anti-Catholicism in this 
country in the 1930s and '40s that actually led to the Supreme Court's 
Everson v. Board of Education ruling of 1947, and that really pushed us over 
the edge. 

The first large waves of immigrants from Italy, Ireland, and other Catholic 
countries began to arrive on our shores in the 1830s, when Andrew Jackson 
was president. Freedom of religion was already an established principle of 
law, guaranteed by the First Amendment, but there were groups such as the 
so-called "Know Nothings," who saw this invasion of European Catholics as 
a threat. They said, "We can't have those Catholics coming in here and 
changing things. Why, they're committed to the pope!" And that created a 
wave of bad feelings that would continue for decades. 

Over the next forty years, this uncharitable attitude led to the passage of 
bad laws such as the Blaine Amendments, which limited government support 
for parochial schools in several states, and accelerated the idea of a 
"separation of church and state" But it showed up most perniciously in 
1947, in Justice Hugo Black's outrageous dicta in the Everson case, saying 
that the Founding Fathers had erected an imaginary "wall of separation" that 
must be kept "high and impregnable," and this prevented people of faith 
from having influence in the affairs of government. At the very least, this 
was an incredibly bad misreading of the Constitution, which probably 
involved great mischief by individuals who had undue influence on the 


Court at that time. But as Professor Daniel Dreisbach points out in his 
important book on this subject, justice Black's own anti-Catholicism was 
also a major factor in that bad decision. 

The bad news is that the separation of morality from public life has 
devastated this nation ever since. The Court's action in tossing Bible reading 
and prayer out of the schools in the 1960s was merely the beginning, and 
over the last fifty years corruption has eaten away the moral fabric of the 
schools. Today we're seeing a breakdown of law and order in all aspects of 
public life, an escalation of violence and indecency, and a level of hatred for 
Christians and others who believe in traditional values that would have 
utterly shocked our Founding Fathers. 

The good news, however, is that because things have gone so far in the 
wrong direction, we are also seeing the beginnings of a counterrevolution, 
along with reconciliation between people of many faiths and backgrounds 
such as we have never seen before. It's a new day in America. There's a new 
level of understanding and cooperation between Protestants, Catholics, and 
Orthodox Jews, due in large part to the intensity of the attacks from the 
antireligious Left, and this new unity is changing the cultural landscape in 
the most astonishing ways. 

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his book Democracy in America, "I do not 
know if all Americans have faith in their religion-for who can read the 
secrets of the heart? -but I am sure that they think it necessary to the 
maintenance of republican institutions. That is not the view of one class or 
party among the citizens, but of the whole nation; it is found in all ranks." 
When he was asked what made American society work, the French 
statesman didn't hesitate to say that it was the evangelical juggernaut, and 
what we're seeing emerging today is every bit as powerful as what he saw 
then. Even though we have endured hard times in this country, and even 
though people of faith are still being attacked on many fronts, the 
juggernaut lives. Our task now is to rekindle the flame of traditional moral 
values and to awaken the sleeping giant. 


I think it's important to be very clear about the importance of moral 
leadership in government. As my friend Rev. William J. Murray has pointed 
out, "Government is not God," and government can never be all things to all 
people, as many on the Left would prefer. Furthermore, if we strip all 
references to God and godly morality from our nation's laws, then, by 
definition, government will be godless, and the laws enacted by the men and 
women in Congress and the fifty state legislatures will be ungodly and self- 

Our Founding Fathers understood this, and they said so. William Penn 


said, "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by 
tyrants." Noah Webster, the great author and educator who gave us the first 
American dictionary, said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in 
the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. 
All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, 
oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the 
precepts contained in the Bible" And John Jay, the first chief justice of the 
Supreme Court said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their 
rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian 
nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers" 

What clearer warnings could we have? Yet, under the delusion that 
church and state cannot coexist and cooperate in the task of restraining evil 
and building a civil society, we have witnessed the rise of the most 
unimaginable evil in our time. Nothing else explains so well the rise of 
homosexuality as a protected civil right, or the legalization of abortion that 
has led to a culture of death, or the assault on moral judgment in the 
nation's schools and colleges. Young people in America today know all 
about sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, but they know next to nothing about the 
true history of this nation or the great moral and religious precepts that were 
prescribed by our Founding Fathers. 

With the help of groups such as the ACLU, People for the American Way, 
and others of their ilk, the Left has waged a relentless assault on moral 
judgment for the last hundred years, but we in the church are not entirely 
free of blame. From the standpoint of politics, too many Christians have 
been holding their finger up to the wind waiting for "the right time" to speak 
up. Well, first of all, let me say that it's never too early to stand on moral 
principle, but there's never been a better time for people of faith to rise up 
and speak up for what we believe. 

I received a memo not long ago from Richard Viguerie, who is the 
godfather of the direct-mail business and a long-time friend, saying that in 
the wake of the 2004 general election, those on the left of the political 
spectrum have suddenly found themselves in a catch-22 situation. If they 
don't move to the right and embrace moral values, they will be forced into 
minority status for a generation. If they do move to the right, however, they 
will disenfranchise their radical-left base and, once again, be forced into 
minority status for a generation. I think that's a very perceptive analysis. 

The caveat, however, is that Republicans and other conservative voters 
must make it clear that they are committed to defending traditional Judeo- 
Christian values. "From the White House to the Courts;" continued Richard 
Viguerie in the memo, "there is no benefit to be gained from going soft on 
moral values" I agree, but that view is no longer merely the opinion of those 
of us on the Religious Right. In an op-ed piece for the San Diego Union, 
published just five days after the Republican victory of November 2004, 
former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote that a majority of 
American voters have realized that they are "deeply estranged from the 


establishment left, which is the national mainstream media, the liberal elite, 
the trial lawyers, Hollywood, the unions, and left-wing ethnic politicians, 
who collectively make the most noise." 

The reason for this separation of sensibilities, he said, is because the Left 
has lost touch with what Americans really believe. The sudden emergence of 
the "values voters" is evidence of "an America that is trying to instill in their 
children the moral values that the establishment left has rejected" And until 
the Left changes its tune, there can be no compromise. Symbolic of this 
change of attitude was the defeat of Senate Minority Leader Senator Tom 
Daschle in his race against my good friend and former Congressman John 
Thune of South Dakota. Quite simply, Gingrich said, Daschle was defeated 
because the voters of his state realized "that he had more in common with 
Michael Moore, who came to personify the worst of the Hollywood left, than 
he did with rural farmers" 


These are powerful ideas, and they're really catching on. In January 2005, 
Mr. Gingrich was interviewed on The 700 Club about his new book Winning 
the Future, and Pat Robertson asked the former Speaker if he thought, in 
light of the Republican victory in November, that conservatives would be 
willing to step up and fight for what we believe in. Gingrich said he did, and 
that incidents such as Michael Newdow's attack on the Pledge of Allegiance 
might be enough to rouse even the most comfortable and complacent 
Americans out of their armchairs. Gingrich went on to say: 

I am hoping that will arouse people of belief, people who 
understand that there is a Creator, to decide to reenter this fight, 
and say, "Look, our Declaration of Independence is very straight- 
forward. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable 
rights. Now either that is a fact that is the basis of America, or we 
are just randomly-gathered protoplasm having a contract 
relationship" I think we are a covenant society, and I think part of 
the message has to be to our elected officials that we expect 
Congress and the President to stand up to judges who don't 
understand America. 

When asked to elaborate on what he meant in saying that the president 
ought to stand up to judges, Mr. Gingrich reminded the audience that 
Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison at one point, using their 
constitutional authority, simply eliminated the judgeships of a group of 
magistrates who were waging war on the White House from the bench. 
Those judges tried to appeal their dismissal, but no judge would take the 
case for fear of losing their jobs, too. After explaining that point, Gingrich 


And in the case of the two appeals court judges of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals who said they were going to outlaw 
saying "one nation under God" in the Pledge, my position would 
be Thomas Jefferson's, which would be to abolish their two jobs. 

Let them go back into the private sector, because clearly those 
two judges do not understand America and should not be sitting 
on the federal bench. 

Those were strong words and very good advice. But even if it's unlikely 
that the president or Congress would be willing to take such drastic 
measures, it is nevertheless important to be reminded that all judges, from 
the Supreme Court to the local justice of the peace, serve at the pleasure of 
the people and their elected representatives. Article III of the U.S. 
Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in 
one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from 
time to time ordain and establish" What Congress makes. Congress can 
unmake, and that ought to be fair warning to judges who think they are 
empowered to override the will of the people and legislate bad laws from 
the bench. 

I was also encouraged by the Speaker's comment that we are a "covenant 
society" As a former history professor, Mr. Gingrich understands what the 
Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620 were really saying when they 
penned the Mayflower Compact as a covenant of good faith between the 
colonists and as a covenant of profound religious faith in a benevolent 
Creator God. The reason the Left fights so intensely, and the reason that a 
post-Christian Europe has turned against America in recent years, is precisely 
because we are a covenant people. That covenant means we care about one 
another, and we are determined to resist policies and practices that put 
Americans at risk. It means also that we want to honor God in all we do, so 
that His hand of blessing will remain upon this nation forever. 


Those who want to abolish moral standards, however, are outraged by these 
ideas. Homosexuals in particular see such language as a threat to their 
lifestyle, and that's another reason why they fight any expression of moral 
judgment in the public arena. The covenant idea, as it says in the 
Declaration of Independence, expresses the understanding of the Founding 
Fathers that government is given to us by God so that we can govern 
ourselves. And self-government is the key to good government. If we leam 
nothing else from the 2004 election, let us leam this: values voters are 
people who believe that ordered liberty demands a moral standard, and they 
will no longer put their tmst in candidates who refuse to honor our 
fundamental values and beliefs. 

Homosexuality grows out of social disorder in the family, along with 


various other factors. Psychologists who specialize in treating men and 
women with same-sex attractions tell us that homosexuality is rarely a factor 
in families where there are fathers who are training their sons and daughters 
in a morally responsible manner and mothers who uphold standards of 
respect and decency in the home. These are values that are fundamental to 
society, and furthermore, they are values that help to bring people together 
from all the various racial and ethnic groups in this country. 

Black, white, brown, and every variation of race and national origin: we 
are all united in our desire to see our children grow up strong and healthy, 
with good social skills. And I believe this is the real hope of reconciliation 
for this country. But it is also important to say that the causes of 
homosexuality are complex and variable, and can't be diagnosed by simple 
formulas. This is why groups such as NARTH and Exodus International 
provide such a valuable service. 

In a column for the Boston Globe published in March 2004, Jeff Jacoby 
pointed out that African Americans have really stepped up to the plate in the 
defense of biblical morality. Homosexuals have tried to co-opt the language 
of civil rights to convince Americans that they are an oppressed minority. As 
I have indicated already, this is a false and dangerously misleading analogy, 
but Christian leaders in the black community aren't letting that fraud go 

As Jacoby points out in his column, when Ezell Blair, David Richmond, 
Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain took their seat at the Greensboro Lunch 
Counter in 1960, they weren't trying to force some sort of revolutionary 
change on the nation. They weren't trying to make behaviors legal that had 
been judged illegal and immoral throughout human history. They were 
simply asking for the same respect and the same rights that whites already 
enjoyed: the right to be served a decent lunch and to pay for it with their 
own money, just like everyone else. 

Homosexuals, as Jacoby says so well, "cloak their demands in the 
language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth. 
They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is 
available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it 
to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be 
done undemocratically-by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting 
the law. Whatever else that may be;" he writes, "it isn't civil rights." 

When a group of distinguished black clergy spoke up and challenged 
lawmakers in Massachusetts to reject the false claims of the homosexual 
lobby and to support the historic definition of marriage as the union of "one 
man and one woman," the homosexual lobby hit the roof. One left-wing 
assemblyman jumped to his feet to exclaim, "Martin Luther King is rolling 
over in his grave at a statement like this!" Of course, nothing could be 
further from the truth. As Jeff Jacoby went on to say: 


But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency 
of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil 
rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a 
fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex 
marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a 
fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male 
and female. 


In the fall of 2004, as it appeared that the courts and several state 
legislatures were prepared to force same-sex marriage on the nation against 
our will, the Traditional Values Coalition called together a group of one 
hundred sixty African American bishops, pastors, ministers, evangelists, and 
religious leaders to come to Washington to call on Congress to take a strong 
stand in support of traditional marriage and to demonstrate their support for 
the black family (and all others) by passing a constitutional amendment that 
would settle the matter for all time. They want an amendment that will 
insure liberal federal judges and local officials will not be able to force their 
values on the rest of us. 

At the end of the summit, the pastors invited the Congressional Black 
Caucus (CBC) members to meet with them so the pastors could share their 
views on marriage. When they addressed the Congressional Black Caucus, a 
group that ought to be their natural allies in this cause, the ministers pointed 
out that further assaults on the black family should be the last thing they 
wanted, particularly since fully 74 percent of the African American 
community have said they want to protect the concept of traditional 
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

In a document submitted to the CBC, the church leaders said, "It's no 
secret that black families have been under assault in recent years. Divorce, 
teenage pregnancy, fatherless homes, and a disproportionate number of HIV- 
AIDS cases are all unattractive aspects of the black family landscape. In 
addition, new research shows that there are already clear signs of long-term 
marital breakdown of the black family... two out of every three newborn 
blacks enter the world with an unwed mother and no consistent father 
figure." And the obvious implication, they said, is that, "Further 
destabilization of traditional marriage must be prevented at all costs" 

Sadly, the pleas of these ardent leaders fell on deaf ears, and the members 
of Congress who ought to have been most sympathetic to their concerns 
rebuffed them and sent them away empty-handed. Representative John 
Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and a member of the CBC, stood and said, "I just 
want to set the record straight here. Some of these so-called black ministers 
and so-called civil rights leaders never supported civil rights. They never 
marched one day. They never put their bodies on the line for the cause of 


civil rights" And he added imperiously that, "Coretta Scott King, the widow 
of Martin Luther King Jr., is opposed to this amendment." 

In the end, six members of the CBC did vote to protect marriage as a 
result of our direct lobbying efforts in their districts. It was also the result of 
the Ministers and Pastors Summit hosted by the Traditional Values Coalition 
to reach out to leaders in the African American church. Representative 
Harold Ford of Memphis, Tennessee, received over four thousand phone 
calls; Representative William Jefferson of New Orleans received close to 
forty-five hundred phone calls. That made the difference. 

For the party of the Left, politics supersedes morality, and the power of 
the homosexual lobby for many in that room apparently meant more than 
the power of their own constituents-black, white, and brown. But the outcry 
from the Christian community was not lost. Three major denominations of 
Greater Boston's black clergy met and announced their opposition to the 
homosexual constitutional amendment that overturned the state 
constitution of Massachusetts. All over the country, the black church 
community has been outspoken on this issue. They are tired of seeing 
homosexuals using the language of their hard-won "civil rights" for immoral 

On May 17, 2004, the day that the state of Massachusetts began issuing 
marriage licenses to homosexuals, the Traditional Values Coalition brought a 
group of eighty black pastors here to Washington. The coalition sponsored 
another event in Memphis shortly thereafter for three hundred pastors. We 
had another three hundred black pastors at an event in Atlanta, and then we 
hosted a twenty-four-hour round-theclock summit in Washington on 
September 8 and 9, with some two hundred African American pastors 
meeting in prayer and fellowship, and then speaking up for traditional 
marriage on Capitol Hill. 

Together, we lobbied the Congressional Black Caucus and picked up those 
six votes. Later, on September 20, we met with five hundred mostly Hispanic 
pastors in East Los Angeles County. In February 2005, Rev. Frederick K. C. 
Price, pastor of the Crenshaw Christian Center, a large dynamic church in 
Los Angeles, sponsored a conference at his facility to rally the African 
American community behind this important issue. 

This is just a sign of the momentum that is building around this issue. 
Black pastors are very important to the cause, but it's not just one group, 
one denomination, or one tradition that's involved. What we are seeing is a 
tremendous regrouping of evangelical Christians, conservative Roman 
Catholics, and orthodox Jews, all of whom share a common concern for the 
deplorable state of contemporary culture and all of whom, for the first time 
in living memory, are united in their efforts to stop the advance of 
immorality and return this nation to its roots. What could be more exciting 
than that? 


There's a reformation taking place, and the old lines don't hold anymore. 
There is a new and exciting realignment within Christianity, and the crisis 
that mainline churches, including the Episcopal Church, the Methodist 
Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), are going through today is just 
the birth pangs of an explosive awakening that's just about to happen. What 
we're going through now, since the fall of 2004, is the birth pangs of a 
tremendous new movement of faith and moral judgment that will most 
certainly include (as Alexis de Tocqueville would surely applaud) a 
reawakening of the evangelical juggernaut. 


I can't begin to tell you how happy it makes me to see these signs of renewal 
coming forth from all parts of the country. I remember vividly the day in 
1972 when my friend and colleague Dr. Walter Martin walked into my office 
and said, "Lou, the homosexuals are on the march!" To be honest, I couldn't 
imagine what Walter was talking about at that time. There was no gay rights 
movement of any notable size in 1972. I hadn't been paying attention to the 
issue, and I worried frankly that Walter had been watching too many late- 
night movies on TV. 

But when I looked up, Walter said, "They're getting ready to repeal the 
sodomy laws" And I thought. What does that mean? So I asked him, 
"Sodomy law? What's a sodomy law, Walter?" That's how naive I was in 
those days. But over the next hour or so, he told me all about it, and then 
Walter said to me prophetically: "If they remove the sodomy laws, then 
they'll make it legal for the homosexual lifestyle to be taught and presented 
as a viable lifestyle alternative. At that point, there will be nothing stopping 

That conversation took place over thirty-three years ago, and that's when I 
became involved in the effort to stop the homosexual agenda. Pat Boone, 
the great entertainer who now heads a number of important foundations and 
Christian service organizations, was also interested in this issue, and we 
became good friends at that time. We met to compare notes on the things 
that Walter Martin had learned, and we decided to begin contacting people 
in the California legislature to encourage them to stand against the 
homosexual lobby. 

The problem was that everywhere we went there was almost total 
ignorance on this issue. The homosexual community was well armed and 
already very active. But the church was disengaged, and there were no strong 
defenders of traditional values in this battle. Still worse, however, the 
church wasn't just ignorant about political engagement, but many church 
leaders were dead set against any sort of discourse on these important social 
and political issues. On many occasions wellmeaning Christian leaders 
would warn us about getting involved in political action, saying that it was 


unbiblical and dangerous. 

At one point, after it became clear to me that political action was going to 
be a bigger part of my ministry, my own pastor came to me and said, "Lou, if 
you get involved in politics, you'll lose your anointing" I listened, of course, 
and I thought deeply about that challenge, but I knew it couldn't be true. 
That was 1972. The separation of church and state was a relatively new fact 
of life, but that insidious doctrine had already left its mark. The level of 
ignorance among many evangelicals at the time was as thick as a London 
fog. So I prayed very seriously, and I soon realized that if I didn't get 
involved politically I would lose my anointing. 

So that's when I really got started. We went to Sacramento to talk to the 
legislature. We tried to stop a measure being pushed by the Hollywood 
crowd and the liberal media granting special rights to homosexuals. We tried 
to stop it, but it passed both houses. We tried to repeal it, and we couldn't 
do that either. Then, in 1977, while I was working with Pat Robertson on 
some of these things, actress and singer Anita Bryant, who was an outspoken 
opponent of the gay agenda, called state senator John Briggs and 
encouraged him to bring me up to Sacramento to help with a new ballot 
initiative for the upcoming elections. The goal this time was to keep 
homosexuality from being taught in the public schools. 

Senator Briggs called me, and I went to see him at his office. He said, 
"Lou, we only have one shot at stopping this thing. We have to get six 
hundred thousand signatures on a petition to put the measure on the ballot, 
and we have one year to do it." Well, that was my challenge, and I began 
going around to churches all over the state, talking to people on the street or 
wherever I could, trying to get some momentum behind the effort. Over the 
next year we probably spent as much as $300,000 doing it, but we got the 
signatures, and we got the initiative on the ballot. It was a great team effort, 
and that became our model for getting Christians active in the political 
process. As it turned out, we were ahead of our time. 

We had done everything we could, and we came so close to stopping that 
bad bill. But Ronald Reagan, a former Hollywood actor who still had friends 
in the homosexual community, was governor of California at the time, and 
he wasn't ready to fight that battle. In the end he came down on the other 
side of the issue. He said, "Live and let live;" and Republicans in the state 
legislature weren't prepared to fight both the homosexual lobby and the 
governor. The deciding vote was cast by Merv Dymally, a member of the 
California legislature, and Governor Reagan did not veto it. So it ended 
there, and the children of California are still paying the price. 


California, where I live and spend my time when I'm not working on Capitol 


Hill, is an interesting place, primarily because it's often a frontrunner in 
national trends. There's a strong conservative base in the state that's often 
overpowered, unfortunately, by the enormous and persuasive media culture 
that's there as well. What we tend to see, rather than the values of all the 
hard-working mothers and fathers who are trying to raise decent families, are 
the trendy values of Hollywood and the lifestyles of the rich and scandalous 
in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles. And in that environment, even 
our political victories are often cast as defeats. 

For example, in December 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who 
was elected to replace the very liberal Governor Gray Davis, who was 
recalled and turned out of office by popular referendum, made a trip to 
Germany. On that trip, the governor told a German newspaper that the 
Republican Party that elected him needs to "cross the center line" and slide 
more to the left politically. That remark, as I said in an editorial for the Los 
Angeles Times at the time, made it clear that Schwarzenegger somehow 
didn't get the message of the November election, in which Republicans held 
the White House and gained seats in both the House and the Senate. 

Schwarzenegger, who is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, clearly 
wasn't watching when fourteen states passed initiatives banning gay 
marriage. Instead, he may have been listening to his wife, Maria Shriver, and 
her uncle. Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who were no 
doubt wringing their hands because of the sudden appearance of "values 
voters" at the polls and what they perceived as the extremism of the 
"Religious Right" These are the same people, after all, who had predicted a 
Kerry landslide and civil war in the Republican Party. 

But Schwarzenegger told the German reporter, "I'd like the Republican 
Party to cross that center line;" meaning that he advocates taking more 
liberal positions on social issues. He predicted that Republicans could pick 
up at least 5 percent more votes if they were more like the Democrats. Well, 
to put it charitably, that wasn't the message most of us got in November, 
and it's not the message the vast majority of values voters got either. 

If the election had turned out to be a rejection of traditional values, 
Schwarzenegger's argument might have made more sense. But the fact is, 
traditional values won, and the governor got it exactly backward. Smart 
Democrats are doing all they can to look more like Republicans in order to 
attract more voters and campaign contributions. In the end, the leopard 
cannot change his spots, and while many on the Left may embrace the 
subterfuge of liberals pretending to support moral values-as, for example, 
Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are trying to do-the record is there for 
everyone to see, and it's perfectly clear what those people are up to. 

If you want to see what support for the homosexual agenda and other 
left-wing policies can do when it invades an organization, take a look at 
what has happened to the liberal mainline denominations. The Episcopal 
Church USA has been drifting leftward for decades and condoned the 


ordination of Rev. V. Eugene Robinson, an outspoken homosexual, as bishop 
of New Hampshire in August 2003. Since 1965, the number of Episcopalians 
has fallen from 3.6 million to fewer than 2.3 million in 2002. Of those, only 
about 850,000 actually attend services most Sundays. Recently 18 Anglican 
archbishops from third world nations called on the Episcopal Church USA to 
repent of their pro-homosexual policies and pleaded with them to revoke 
Gene Robinson's ordination. But the ECUSA clergy were unwilling to do that, 
and as a result the denomination continues to bleed members at an 
astonishing pace. 

The United Methodist Church, which has been the most homosexual 
friendly of all the mainline denominations, has lost more than half its 
membership since the late-1950s. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has lost a 
comparable percentage, including some 41,812 members in 2002 alone. 

I completed my master of divinity degree at Princeton Theological 
Seminary in 1960 and was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church. Over 
the next twenty-five years that denomination went through some very 
troubling changes, and I decided I needed to make some changes as well. I 
was ordained as a minister in the conservative Presbyterian Church in 
America (PCA) in 1989, where I've been ever since. Since the downward 
spiral began in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the mid-1960s, membership 
has fallen from 4.2 million to just 2.4 million today. But here's the good 
news: other evangelical, charismatic, Pentecostal, and independent Bible- 
believing churches have been growing at a record pace since the mid-1970s, 
largely at the expense of the mainline denominations that have turned away 
from biblical inerrancy and moved toward the acceptance and affirmation of 
homosexuality-even among the clergy. 

Four of the top twenty-five denominations today, according to the annual 
yearbook of the National Council of Churches, are Pentecostal, and seven of 
the largest twenty-five denominations in the country are predominantly 
African American, where biblical doctrine and conservative teaching are still 
emphasized. Two of those denominations, the National Baptist Convention 
of America and the National Baptist Convention, USA, have a combined 8.5 
million members. So it's not that nobody's going to church anymore; it's that 
they're not wasting their time in churches that no longer heed the Word of 


There's no way to mistake what the Bible has to say about the sin of 
homosexuality without wildly misreading and misinterpreting what's written 
there in black and white. But, of course, this is precisely what homosexuals 
and their enablers have been trying to do for years. Metropolitan Community 
churches, which cater primarily to homosexuals and lesbians, and the so- 
called "affirming churches" in various denominations have had to "re- 


imagine" in the most outrageous ways what God has said, and what the 
prophets and apostles revealed in both the Old and New Testaments, in 
order to convince their followers that homosexuality is not, as the Bible 
says, an abomination (Lev. 18:22). 

But homosexuals are determined not only to force their lifestyle on us, 
but also they plan on doing it by using government and the courts to silence 
the opposition. This is why "antidiscrimination" laws and "hate speech" 
legislation is such a recurrent theme. Senator Kennedy and homosexual 
activist Representative Barney Frank have been pushing laws for years that 
would define religious objections to homosexuality as hate speech. The 
tragedy is that being told that homosexuality is a sin and that it is dangerous 
and potentially fatal can save lives. That's the message I've been trying to 
give for thirty-three years now, but if these powerful men have their way, 
warning people about these risks will one day be against the law. 

As we have already seen in Canada and certain parts of Europe, simply 
preaching the gospel and citing biblical passages that warn of the sin of 
homosexuality may one day be hate crimes in this country. Laws like that 
could then be used to silence other kinds of religious speech-not just about 
homosexuality but about many others things. In March 2004, when actor 
Mel Gibson's powerful film The Passion of the Christ was released in 
theaters in this country, anti-Christian groups called on Attorney General 
John Ashcroft and the Justice Department to censor the film because it 
would incite violence against Jews or other non-Christians. 

But the activists don't stop there. Since the early 1970s they have been 
very successful at pushing their agenda into the schools and colleges with 
programs such as the "safe schools" projects, which claim to make schools 
more accepting of homosexuals and transgender students. This includes 
creating "safe places" where sexually confused or "questioning" kids can 
gather to network and, naturally, get even more involved in the homosexual 
lifestyle. If these things continue, and if an entire generation of young 
Americans is persuaded that homosexuality is good and natural and normal, 
then Bible-believing Christians will soon find they have lost their children to 
an oppressive, sexualized culture that can't help but degenerate into anarchy 
and totalitarianism. 

Free speech will be a thing of the past; freedom of religion will be 
restricted or banished. Children will be subjected to homosexual 
indoctrination, and parental rights will be subverted. And it will get even 
worse. Today the homosexual lobby is working with the United Nations to 
make "sexual orientation" a "universal human right" that must be protected 
by the UN and the World Court, with draconian punishment and 
enforcement measures for those who resist. In March 2004, a proposal to do 
just that was withdrawn by a group of Brazilian homosexuals, because of 
bad timing problems, I imagine, but rest assured that the measure will show 
up again, with Canada and the European Union leading the way. Today the 
Traditional Values Coalition is monitoring these trends, but the situation is 


grave and our work is cut out for us. 


Obviously, I cannot fight this battle by myself, and that's why I'm so grateful 
that God has blessed this ministry and put us in a position to speak with and 
for committed believers all over America. It is an honor for us to have the 
opportunity to lobby for Christian values in the nation's capital. I hear from 
Christians who are deeply concerned about these issues every day of the 
year. Our office in Washington receives hundreds of calls, letters, faxes, and 
e-mails with words of encouragement and with various kinds of spiritual and 
financial support. This is what keeps us going. 

When people support the work of the Traditional Values Coalition in 
fighting against the totalitarian agenda of the homosexual lobby, they are 
taking a stand for moral values and helping to preserve the kind of America 
the Founding Fathers meant for us to have. In addition to our Web site- produce a hard-hitting newsletter and a 
weekly e-mail bulletin that goes out to hundreds of thousands of homes and 
offices with news about what's happening on the national scene. These are 
available to all our supporters and friends. 

In addition, we are honored to know that there's a growing network of 
men and women who are willing to write letters, send e-mails, and call their 
federal and state legislators and local public officials to encourage them to 
stand up for traditional values and to defend our First Amendment 
guarantees of free speech and the freedom of religion. I can assure you that 
a personal, handwritten letter to a congressman or senator carries a lot of 
weight. And even for those lawmakers who may not agree with us on these 
issues, taking the time to express your feelings about the dangers of the 
homosexual agenda can be a powerful weapon for good. 

I also ask our supporters and friends to be willing to write letters to the 
editor of the local newspaper, to respond to articles that promote the 
homosexual lifestyle, and also to make sure that their friends, family, and 
fellow church members know how they feel about the threats to religious 
freedom coming from the homosexual agenda. If we don't speak up, nobody 
will do it for us. So we need to educate our local school officials on the 
efforts of homosexuals to recruit children and to undermine the moral 
framework of American society. 

I'm sorry to say that sometimes the most difficult task is to get pastors 
and church leaders to speak out on these issues. The secular culture has 
convinced a lot of them that it's not loving or tolerant to speak boldly about 
homosexual sin. This is a lie of Satan, and it disturbs me that so many men 
and women who ought to know better have allowed themselves to be 
compromised by it. But it's always a good idea to speak from the heart with 


these people and to maintain a strong witness for the truth. 

Encourage your pastor to establish a public affairs representative in your 
church who will monitor how the homosexual agenda is impacting your 
schools and community. Encourage him also to preach about the dangers of 
homosexual activism to our way of life. We have produced a comprehensive 
thirty-eight-minute film, called Gay Rights, Special Rights, that makes a 
powerful statement on this issue. This film can be a great way to get adult 
classes and Bible study groups to focus more seriously on the risks of the 
homosexual lifestyle. 

We live in a new age of interactive media, with so many more tools to 
influence the culture than we have ever had before. Consequently, I also 
encourage our supporters to call in to conservative and Christian talk shows 
when the subject of homosexuality is being discussed. This may not be the 
time to start quoting Scripture, but it's certainly a good time to talk about 
the tragic consequences of homosexuality, the shortened life expectancy, 
statistics on disease and death, and other factors that are there by God's 
design to keep people away from these destructive behaviors. And of course 
the Internet is a great place to get these ideas out to people who need to 
know more about what's going on. 


For some folks who read this book, running for elected office may be a very 
real and logical option. Test the waters in your community. Are there 
openings in city government that may be in line with your knowledge and 
skills? Are there school-board elections or other places where your insights 
could make a difference? Some people may be qualified as judges, mayors, 
state legislators, or perhaps members of Congress or the United States 
Senate. None of these will be a shoo-in, and in some of them special talents 
and skills may be required. But unless men and women with strong moral 
values and a willingness to serve step up to the plate, other people with very 
different values will be more than happy to do it. So be bold and find a place 
to serve. 

Not least in this list of things you can do, I would encourage you to stay 
informed about what's happening in this arena, to watch for breaking news 
that will affect you and your family, and to communicate with your 
representatives in Congress and the United States Senate and your state 
legislators when those in the homosexual lobby attempt to undermine your 
values and beliefs. I hope you will become familiar as well with the 
Traditional Values Coalition Web site (, which we 
keep up-to-date with important news in this and many related areas. 

Our staff in Washington and other parts of the country are on guard 
around the clock, but we can't do it all by ourselves. We depend on your 


input, not only in taking the message to your community and friends, but 
also in being our eyes and ears on the frontlines. The letters I receive from 
friends and supporters are a tremendous encouragement to me, assuring me 
that, with God's help, we're in this battle together. 

While you're at it, please encourage your friends, neighbors, and business 
associates to take action as well. You can keep them informed by e-mailing 
them news items from our Web site or forwarding our e-mail news briefs 
dealing with the homosexual agenda and other cultural issues. Those on the 
other side of this issue aren't wasting any time. Groups like the Human 
Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation have 
large staffs and huge budgets, and they are working around the clock to 
force their values down our throats. There's no time to waste, and the work 
is demanding. 

When it comes right down to it, you and I are the ones who will decide if 
the homosexual agenda succeeds in America. We can either fight for moral 
judgment and biblical truth, or we can back away and hope that somebody 
else will take care of it. But unless we take a firm stand, the other side will 
be more than happy to claim the prize they're really after-introducing 
another generation of America's children to a way of life that will destroy 
them. There's no middle ground in this struggle, so now's the time to fight. 

One reason we find ourselves in such dire straits at this hour is because 
too many Americans have been paralyzed by this subject. They are afraid to 
speak out about this politically charged issue, and that has to change. That's 
why I have made a commitment to devote my time and every ounce of 
energy to this work, calling God's people back into action. If we leave these 
issues to those who have no problem with the moral collapse of this nation, 
then nothing will change. America will slide further and further down that 
slippery slope. Homosexuals will invade our workplaces, our schools, our 
churches, and even our homes, and before long there will be no place left to 

There are risks in standing your ground, and there are also great 
opportunities if we're willing to accept the challenges before us. But this 
means that every believer must make a commitment to fight the good fight. 
We need to call America back to the values enshrined in our great U. S. 
Constitution, and we need to pray that millions will rise up for such a time 
as this. 

As I've said throughout these pages, nations wither and die when they 
turn their back on God's moral law. But if we can work together to restore 
traditional values in this nation, and if we will renew our commitment to 
serve the God who gave us liberty and life, then there's no force on earth 
that can stop us. So what are we waiting for? 




As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and 
repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My 
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with 
him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit 
with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My 
Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the 
Spirit says to the churches. 


IN THIS BOOK I have spoken strongly against the homosexual agenda, and 
I've been especially pointed in my comments about homosexual activists, 
organizers, and their supporters who have adopted the terminology and 
tactics of war to silence and intimidate their adversaries. I have no sympathy 
for those who, knowing full well that the homosexual lifestyle is destroying 
lives every hour of the day and condemning millions not only to a living hell 
but also to eternal damnation, continue to rage against moral judgment and 
Christian virtues. Their tactics are wicked and their practices are vile. 
Somehow, in God's name, they must be stopped. 

But let me be quick to say that I do not hate homosexuals, and I know 
that there are many caring and well-meaning men and women trapped in the 
homosexual lifestyle who would give anything to be free of it. I know there 
are sons and daughters who pray daily for deliverance and forgiveness but 
cannot break their habits and addictions. I also know there are some who 
actually do break with the lifestyle for a time only to slip back; for them 
homosexuality is not gay but has become a nightmare with no end. All these 
men and women have my deepest compassion and prayers, and I hope that 
my words in these pages, while unapologetic in portraying the sin of the 
homosexual agenda, will not weaken the spirits of those on the verge of 
transformation but will help spark a renewed commitment and even greater 
resolve to seek a way of escape. 


To help put this in context, let me tell you about an incident that happened 
a few years ago in the midst of all the furor surrounding the Matthew 


Shepard murder case. Shepard, as you may recall, was a homosexual college 
student who approached two men in a bar, apparently to solicit sex. 
Subsequently, depending on which version of the story you believe, the men 
went with him to a desolate stretch of highway where they murdered the 
young man in cold blood and left him strung up on a barbed wire fence. 
That was a hideous and brutal act, for which the law justifiably makes no 
excuse. But, of course, the homosexual community leapt on the case as an 
example of the kinds of "gay bashing" homosexuals endure. The fact is, such 
cases are very rare, but it was just the sort of thing the activists were looking 
for to help them win the media battle. 

Within days the police apprehended the killers, and in due course the case 
came to trial at the state courthouse in Laramie, Wyoming. And even though 
it was an exceptional situation, I knew I had to go witness the proceedings. 
So in November 1998, I flew to Laramie as an observer, accompanied by my 
colleague James Lafferty, who is also my son-in-law and communications 
consultant. The fact that Shepard was a homosexual made the case a 
national media event, and the activists were out in force. Thanks to their 
grandstanding, along with the frenzy of the reporters, photographers, and 
network crews that showed up for the trial, the event turned out to be a 
huge media circus. 

When we arrived at the courthouse in Laramie, Jim and I saw what looked 
like two rival gangs lined up like armies on the field of battle. On one side 
were the homosexual activists who ringed the entire courthouse lawn, 
wearing angel costumes complete with large wings. Facing them and yelling 
insults in their faces were the forces of Rev. Fred Phelps and his supporters 
from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps has become 
notorious in recent years for attending homosexual rallies of all kinds and 
displaying provocative signs saying things like, "God Hates Fags" For this 
case, Phelps and friends had gone to even greater lengths to provoke the 
homosexuals by setting up a Web site on the Internet with a graphic of 
Matthew Shepard standing in the flames of hell. 

So all this was happening when we arrived. The homosexuals were yelling 
and making an incredible scene, while Phelps and his people were matching 
them decibel for decibel, and both camps were in good voice that day. As I 
walked up to the courthouse with Jim, we saw a crowd of at least fifty news 
people with all their equipmentnotebooks, microphones, and cameras- 
recording that outrageous scene. But as soon as they spotted me, virtually 
the entire contingent came racing over, and they wanted to know what the 
Bible has to say about people like Rev. Phelps and the charges he was 

I told them that I was very concerned about the bad impression that 
Phelps was making with his vicious attacks saying that homosexuals cannot 
be saved. "Like any other person who sins," I told the reporters, 
"homosexuals can be saved by repenting and accepting Jesus Christ as their 
Savior" I explained that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of us and that 


no sin, including homosexuality, is so great that Jesus will not forgive the 
sinner if he or she sincerely repents of their sin. 

As serious as the case was, and as concerned as we all were about how 
the news coverage would be received that day, it was really comical to 
watch those reporters from CNN, CBS, the New York Times, and many other 
major media outlets racing back and forth between where Jim and I were 
standing and where Rev. Phelps was camped out. Jim said it looked like a 
tennis match at Wimbledon! On several occasions. Rev. Phelps would 
misquote Scripture to make his case, or perhaps he would use a quote out of 
context, and then I would have to explain the passage to the reporters, 
telling them what it actually said and meant. 

Later, when I was asked to appear on Court TV, I was able to give a 
summary of the debate that had been going on that day between Phelps and 
me. At one point Jim asked me, "Did you ever think when you decided to 
come up here that you would be talking about the Scriptures to all these 
reporters and they would be writing it down?" 

I just smiled at Jim and said, "There was a reason for coming here today." 
I knew that God had given us a chance to show that Christians are not 
instruments of hate. Yes, we need to be honest about the sin of 
homosexuality, but we must not forget that Christ came to save the lost- 
even these wicked men in angels' wings. And on that day, we were able to 
give that message loud and clear. 

There is hope, and over the years I have met many ex-gays who have 
bravely come forward to testify to the miracle of God's love that allowed 
them to overcome their bondage to sin. But what we also need to 
understand is that the promoters of the homosexual agenda don't want to let 
any of those captives escape. Their strength, they believe, is in numbers, and 
that's why they resist so fiercely and why they recruit our children in the 
schools, on the playgrounds, and in the shopping malls. This is why they 
have such contempt for groups like the Boy Scouts who deny them access to 
young men pledged to honor God and country and to remain morally 

Furthermore, this is why they've built a massive empire with expansive 
multistory office complexes in major urban centers, like the national 
headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington DC, where they 
meet to orchestrate their well-financed assaults on morality, decency, and 
the law. I will never lose hope that God may save some of them and call 
them out of the lifestyle. But, on the other hand, so long as these large and 
well-funded activist groups continue to prosper, they remain a threat to our 
way of life. So long as they continue to recruit our children, they must be 
counted as enemies in the land. That is the sad reality. 



For decades, these activists have claimed that same-sex attraction is inborn, 
hard-wired, and can't be changed. More recently, however, some activists in 
the transgender community-meaning cross-dressers and those who take on 
the characteristics of the opposite sex-have been saying that sexual 
orientation is fluid, and that it can change back and forth. In other words, 
someone can be a male homosexual one day and a female transvestite the 
next. I could say more about this, but let's just say the mixed messages say a 
lot about the hypocrisy of the movement. 

At one time homosexuals referred to their lifestyle as a "sexual 
preference" Before long, however, they changed the terminology because 
they recognized that most people would perceive that a "preference" is 
actually a "choice" So the new term became "sexual orientation;" which was 
morally neutral and suggested that there was an innate predisposition 

In two exhaustive and eye-opening studies of the homosexual network 
and the public health disasters it has spawned, Enrique T. Rueda exposes the 
posturing and pretense behind the homosexual claims. He shows how the 
disinformation campaign implemented by the homosexual lobby has 
succeeded in changing our laws and corrupting the entire social fabric of 
American culture. These books are not light reading, by any stretch, but they 
are among the most powerful and authoritative works I have ever seen on 
this subject. 

The "bom gay" argument is perhaps the most pernicious deception being 
put forth today. A homosexual lobbying group at the University of 
Washington, called the Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender Commission, has 
made the claim that, "Homosexuality is not a choice any more than being 
left-handed or having blue eyes or being heterosexual is a choice. It's an 
orientation, part of who you are. The choice is in deciding how to live your 
life." As we've seen repeatedly, there's absolutely no credible scientific 
evidence to support that assertion. But, of course, those who are 
predisposed to receive the message are quick to take what sounds like 
science from a major university and use it to silence reasonable dissent. 

The National Education Association and the American Psychological 
Association, for example, were quick to grab onto the "bom gay" myth, 
which they tmmpeted in a pamphlet called, "Just the Facts" That booklet 
was sent to every school superintendent in every public school district in 
America. In it they cited research that supposedly showed, "Sexual 
orientation is one component of a person's identity, which is made up of 
many other components, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, and personality 
traits" This falsehood was subsequently spread far and wide as proof of the 
biological connection to homosexual behavior. 


The purpose of such statements is not merely to defend behavior but to 
prevent groups such as the National Association for Research and Therapy of 
Homosexuality (NARTH), headed by my good friend Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, 
from countering their message with solid evidence that the homosexual 
addiction can be overcome. Homosexual activists and their allies at the NEA 
and APA claimed that "sexual orientation" is built-in. Pro-homosexual 
politicians and lobbyists here in Washington keep saying that we have no 
right to discriminate against homosexuals and that Congress must legislate 
"special rights" to protect these innocent people from attack. 

But the research is unequivocal: there is no such thing as a 'gay gene" 
There is no innate biological condition that makes some men engage in 
sodomy and that makes some women become lesbians. Groups like NARTH 
and Exodus International have published dozens of first-person accounts 
from ex-gays whose lives have been transformed and renewed and who have 
come out of the lifestyle. Confronted by such evidence, and faced with the 
fact that his research had been discredited by scientists at a half dozen 
major research centers, even homosexual researcher Dean Hamer had to 
admit that, "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.... I 
don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." 

Simultaneously, Dr. Simon LeVay, the homosexual researcher who had 
studied the differences in the hypothalamus glands of homosexual and 
heterosexual men, had to admit that, "It's important to stress what I didn't 
find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause 
for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are bom that way, the most 
common mistake people make in interpreting my work. 1,6 I have debated 
Dr. LeVay on radio and television, and I've spoken with him on many 
occasions. While he continues to defend the homosexual agenda, he can no 
longer do so on the basis of science. 

Even lesbian author and activist Dr. Camille Paglia dared to say that, 
"Homosexuality is not 'normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the 
norm.... Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, 
procreation is the single relentless mle. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies 
were designed for reproduction.... No one is bom gay. The idea is ridiculous 
... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.' ' 


One of the main reasons these confessions are important is that they help to 
shed light on the nature of deviant behavior and to make it clear that such 
practices are not built-in, and they're not innocent. Rather, they are 
associated with some sort of emotional disturbance in childhood, such as 
sexual or emotional abuse, and with premature sexual experimentation that 
imprints inappropriate erotic images and emotions on the minds of some 
young men and women. 


To understand where these emotions can lead if they're not dealt with 
promptly and appropriately, we only need to consider briefly some of the 
ways that sexuality has been exploited by those with unnatural desires. 
There are dozens of emotional, psychological, and sociological conditions 
that result in bizarre sexual behaviors, and there are even groups and 
associations formed to promote their particular perversion. 

Perhaps the best known of these is NAMBLA, the North American 
Man/Boy Love Association, that advocates legalized pedophilia. In addition 
to magazines, Web sites, chat rooms, club meetings, and other expressions 
of this vile perversion, NAMBLA organizes "sex tours" for its members, often 
to exotic third world countries or tropical islands where they can engage in 
unrestricted sexual intercourse with children as young as five and six years 
of age. 

Civilized people are revolted by such things, and that's why our laws 
routinely condemn them and why the government actively pursues and 
prosecutes those who are caught participating in them. One such arrest 
happened recently when a well-known family dentist, Phillip Todd Calvin, 
age forty-three, and his two companions, David Cory Mayer, age forty-nine, 
and Paul Ernest Zipszer, age thirty-nine, were arrested by the FBI on San 
Diego's Harbor Island. The men, who were waiting for a boat to take them to 
Mexico, were charged with conspiracy to travel in interstate and foreign 
commerce for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual conduct. 

As it turns out, the whole thing was a sting operation involving the FBI, 
the San Diego Police Department, and other agencies involved in a 
nationwide crackdown on sex tourism. Informants had provided enough 
detailed information on the trio to make their capture possible. Fortunately, 
each man will face up to thirty years in prison upon conviction, but that's 
not the end of the problem. 

When news of the operation went public, FBI spokesmen advised parents 
to talk frankly with their children about the possibility of being targeted by 
people like these three who may try to lure them into situations where they 
can be taken advantage of. Children who use Internet chat rooms are 
especially vulnerable, they said. When combined with the natural curiosity 
of children who have been aroused for years by sexual images in rock music, 
television, and the movies, the risks involved are very real. And it's not 
always clear whom kids can trust. In one very disturbing recent case, a 
minister in the city of Brea, California, was discovered to be a long-term 
pedophile and sexual predator. 

And even if some of their members are caught in the act, NAMBLA isn't 
going away. The battle for gay rights has emboldened their leaders to fight 
the system. If same-sex marriage is ever legalized, as justice Antonin Scalia 
has warned, there will be nothing stopping sexual deviants from bringing 
every imaginable behavior out into the open, daring the law to step in. 
Polygamy will be the first, I suspect, since hundreds of fundamentalist 


Mormons in Utah and parts of Arizona are already practicing what they call 
"multiple marriages;' and law enforcement is turning a blind eye. Next will 
come three- and four-person marriages, and groupings that would boggle the 

As terrible as most of us find such things as pedophilia, incest, polygamy, 
and bestiality to be, these are only the better known perversions that the 
homosexual agenda has unleashed. There are dozens of mental conditions 
known as paraphilias (or fetishes) that have ensnared countless victims. 
Among them are pederasty (male homosexuals who enjoy having sex with 
male children), sadomasochism (individuals who derive sexual pleasure from 
receiving or inflicting pain on others), and necrophilia (individuals who are 
sexually aroused by viewing or having sex with corpses). I hate even to name 
them, but unless I'm explicit about these things, some people will accuse me 
of exaggeration; I only wish that were the case. 


Other perversions include such things as coprophagia (individuals who get 
sexual satisfaction from eating feces), klismaphilia (individuals who are 
sexually aroused by enemas), and even diaper fetishes (where adults get 
sexual pleasure from wearing diapers and wetting themselves). If the 
homosexual lobby's terminology is to be accepted, any one of these 
behaviors could be labeled as a legitimate "sexual orientation" In fact, many 
of the individuals who engage in these practices want their sexual behaviors 
to be declared normal by the counseling community. 

At an American Psychiatric Association symposium in San Francisco in 
2003, two psychiatrists presented a paper arguing for the legitimization of 
pedophilia, sadomasochism, and other similar disorders. According to an 
editorial in the Washington Times, psychiatrist Charles Moses and Peggy 
Kleinplatz, PhD, presented a paper at an APA conference titled, "DSM-IV-TR 
and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal," which argued that people 
with deviant sexual behaviors should not be labeled mentally ill, and that 
cultural and religion values are not good parameters for defining healthy 
sexual behavior. They said that psychiatry does not have a model that 
"constitutes normal and healthy sexuality to which it could compare people 
whose sexual interests draw them to children or sadomasochism" In other 
words, they said, "Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing" 
Fortunately, the members of the APA voted against the proposal, but the 
issue isn't going away. 

Sociologists refer to groups who engage in bizarre sexual practices as 
"deviant subcultures." The success of homosexuals and transgen- ders in 
organizing pressure groups to normalize their behaviors has emboldened 
these other groups to do the same. Pedophiles, as one example, have found 
allies in academia who support adult/child sex. In 1999, the University of 


Minnesota press published Judith Levine's book Harmful to Minors, which 
argues that adult/child sex is not necessarily a bad thing. The foreword to 
her book, by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, called on Americans 
to be more open-minded about sex between adults and children. Again, if 
homosexuals have their way, in time it will be virtually impossible to defend 
society from such people. 

Even current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once argued 
that the age of consent for sex with or between minors should be lowered to 
age twelve. She has been an adamant defender of abortion, as well, and very 
pro-homosexual in her actions on the bench. Such thinking can only come 
from someone who has an affinity for the views of the homosexual lobby 
and, particularly in Ginsburg's case, from her former role as general counsel 
of the ACLU. 

In an article assessing the new trend called "Pedophilia Chic;" Dr. Mary 
Eberstadt described for readers of the Weekly Standard the close 
relationships between the homosexual community and the growing 
pedophile movement. Eberstadt says the reason why sex with boys is being 
so openly debated in this country today is because it's being pushed by 
"certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that movement has 
entered the mainstream, the more this ' question' has bubbled forth from 
that previously distant realm into the public square." All these evils spring 
from the same root. 

According to one homosexual writer, the term "domestic partnerships" 
was first used in California in 1989. The idea was slow in catching on and 
resulted in few tangible benefits. Same-sex partners wanted hospital 
visitation rights, which they got, then certain businesses and public 
organizations began offering domestic -partner benefits to their employees. 
Eventually, however, homosexuals in the state legislature began talking 
about marriage benefits, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. By the time 
Mayor Gavin Newsom handed three thousand marriage licenses to 
homosexuals in San Francisco, the way had been paved. The debates over 
same-sex marriage taking place today are part of the same strategy that 
began there, then migrated to Hawaii in 1993, Vermont in 1999, 
Massachusetts in 2003, and Connecticut in 2005. 

And it's not over yet. 

What's happening is a process the homosexual community calls 
"incrementalism" It's a process of gradual desensitization and 
familiarization, breaking down the natural resistance of the public to what's 
actually involved in homosexual relationships. And it's also a way of 
blackmailing legislators and other public officials into making largescale 
concessions to the gay rights movement, which has managed to persuade 
many people that homosexuality is a "civil right" 

The position of the Traditional Values Coalition is that same-sex marriage, 


domestic partnerships, civil unions, and every other synonym used to 
describe the union of two individuals of the same sex in some sort of 
counterfeit marriage must remain illegal and unacceptable in this country. I 
am fighting now in the halls of Congress for a constitutional amendment, as 
I've described earlier, to insure that marriage is defined as the legal union of 
one man and one woman. But we will only support a constitutional 
amendment that fully protects marriage with no civil unions or any other 
arrangement that allows homosexuals to marry. Marriage is a God-ordained 
institution that preexisted the founding of this nation, and the sanctity of 
marriage and the family must be protected and preserved by law. 


Dr. Warren Throckmorton is an expert in the study and treatment of 
homosexuality. He is someone who believes that there are ways to escape 
from these debilitating social and emotional illnesses. In the film he 
produced, called I Do Exist, Dr. Throckmorton gives us a glimpse into the 
lives of five former homosexuals who have found their way back to 
emotional and sexual health. In the film he also answers many questions 
about the prospects for change. 

Designed as a documentary, the film describes how people come to 
identify themselves as gay in the first place, and then how they are able to 
transition to a new life as heterosexuals. This is just one of the resources I 
recommend to people who want a clearer picture of what happens to people 
in this lifestyle and how some brave individuals manage to break away. The 
men and women who tell their stories in this film describe the process of 
reorienting their sexual desires and behaviors by developing a sense of self- 
awareness and finding a renewed sense of satisfaction in their lives. 

The most compelling component of this film is the story of Noe Gutierrez, 
who had been interviewed in the pro-homosexual film It's Elementary years 
earlier when he was in middle school. Today he is heterosexual, and looking 
back on that experience now with a new frame of reference, Gutierrez 
regrets having contributed to a documentary that aggressively pointed kids 
toward homosexual experimentation, telling them that if they feel different 
in some way, they may be gay. Along with personal and professional 
commentary from a group of distinguished scientists and researchers, I Do 
Exist makes it clear that change is possible, and that homosexuals who are 
determined to find a better way can actually escape the lifestyle and the 
death sentence it brings. 

This is also a message that people like Diane Mattingly and Michael 
Lumberger are now sharing with audiences around the country. Diane is a 
former lesbian who grew up in a home where all the love and attention of 
both parents were directed at her older brother. The brother was handsome, 
a popular athlete, and a good student. "It is said that children are the best 


recorders, but the worst interpreters, of information;" Diane says. "I 
interpreted this favoritism to mean that my brother-and not me-was the one 
who was supposed to succeed. As I watched my parents pour their hopes 
and dreams into him, I felt like I was on the sidelines" 

There are many twists and turns in Diane's story, and many times when 
she felt cut off and unloved. Psychologist Mary Beth Patton, who works with 
the Portland affiliate of Exodus International, writes that, "Women who deal 
with same-sex attraction often possess a history of dis-identification with 
their mothers, and therefore their femininity. This leads to a longing for 
connection with the feminine that becomes sexualized in adolescence" 
Reading those words today, Diane recognizes that this is what happened to 
her. Without the love or respect of either parent, she began looking for love 
in all the wrong places, and she found it. 

Between her long- and short-term relationships with other women, Diane 
dated men and even became pregnant by one of them. She imagined 
momentarily that this might be the answer to her hunger, but the father of 
her child wanted none of it, left her alone, and she took the easy way out by 
aborting her baby. After many dark nights of soul searching and bouts of 
bitter agony and self-hatred, Diane finally called out to God for help, and she 
found her way to two organizations in her home state of Virginia that had 
the answers she needed. 

"The most I could ever hope to do in my own strength," Diane says today, 
"was to keep myself walled off from further hurt. Left to my own efforts, I 
would have had to settle for existing instead of living. And I wanted to live." 
Diane had no choice but to trust God for healing. He had begun a process in 
her that made sense, at last, and she made the difficult choice of walking 
away from her old life of sorrow in order to find a better life in Christ. "I've 
had to choose to keep myself present to the larger body of Christ;" she says, 
"and be willing to enter into transparent relationships with people. Healing 
comes in community and by being in fellowship with other believers. 
Isolation is one of the greatest enemies of the soul." 

When Diane entered a program of counseling and participation called 
Living Waters, run by Regeneration of Northern Virginia, which is part of 
Exodus International, a ministry to ex-gays, her restoration began. "I have 
put off the labels of victim and lesbian and betrayed;' she says. "I have had 
to be willing to let God define me as a woman and to show me how to be 
comfortable with my true femininity." 


For Michael Lumberger, the road to homosexuality was initiated by sexual 
abuse by an older sibling when he was just four years of age. Because of 
threats of violence, the boy kept quiet, and the abuse continued. By the time 


he reached junior high school and the onset of puberty, Michael felt 
"different" His parents were cold and unexpressive. There was no hugging or 
touching in the home, so his natural desire for affection drew him to other 
boys since this was the only closeness he had ever known. 

When Michael moved away to go to college, he shared a room with two 
other young men, one of whom was homosexual. During the first two years 
there, he says, he had sex with men and women. He was a young African 
American male, well liked, and he knew the ropes. It was only when a 
classmate discovered that Michael had been having sex with his male 
roommate that his lifestyle suddenly took on a much more dramatic 
dimension. "Of course, I denied everything;" he said, "but inside I was 
already running. Within a week I had packed my bags and left college. I was 
terrified that people would find out what I had been doing in secret. I went 
back home and worked with my family for a few months. Then I decided, if 
I'm gay. I'm going to be gay all the way." And that's where his slide into the 
homosexual lifestyle began. 

"When I ran out of money for food and drugs," he said, "I even learned to 
sell my body on the streets. But after a few months, I grew sick of 
homosexuality." Eventually Michael went home and got a real job. In time 
he met a woman he cared for, and they got married and had three children. 
But his head and his heart were still confused, and before long he'd lost all 
those signs of a normal life. When he fell back into his old habits, his wife 
left him and took the children. In the depths of despair, he said, God must 
have heard his silent cry for help. He found his way to one church that 
provided some of the answers for his questions, but, because of secret sin in 
the lives of certain members of the church, he almost fell back into his old 

Wisely, Michael moved to a new church that taught the true Word of God. 
Again, God heard his prayers and spoke to his heart, saying, "This is the 
church where I will deliver you from homosexuality" As that process began, 
he once again heard the silent prompting in his spirit, and, once again, he 
was attracted to a woman who appealed to him, but he was uncertain until 
one day he felt the Lord say to him, "That woman is going to be your wife" 
He trusted that voice, introduced himself to the woman he had admired 
from afar, and nine months later they were married. 

Michael's healing from a life of homosexuality and identity confusion 
wasn't immediate. He struggled with sin and at one point was diagnosed 
with full-blown AIDS. That news changed everything. He spent a lonely vigil 
one night with a former homosexual partner who died in his arms, and in his 
tears and confusion, Michael begged God to cleanse him and put him on the 
road to freedom. Once again, the voice of reassurance told him that all 
would be well. 

"Several weeks later;" Michael says, "my pastor asked me to begin leading 
the support group when the previous leader resigned. When I prayed about 


the decision, God said to me, ' This is the thing that I have been preparing 
you for.' In the years since then," he adds, "about five hundred to six 
hundred men and women have gone through the group. Some of them have 
gone back into gay life, but a great majority of them are church leaders 
today. Some are married with families. And it has all happened because I 
said yes to what God called me to do:" And most surprising of all, Michael 
said, today he is "totally free from the AIDS virus." 


The homosexual lifestyle, as these stories reveal, is a sad and torturous 
affair. At best, homosexuals are coping with deep pain, anxiety, and 
insecurity. Their attempts at finding love and acceptance are almost always 
futile, and the horrors of disease and disability they endure as a direct result 
of their unnatural habits are sad and terrible. There is nothing attractive 
about a lesbian who has eradicated her femininity in order to become a 
pseudo-male. There's nothing winsome about a twenty-three-year-old 
homosexual with a colostomy bag at his side. 

The lifestyle is murderous, and the condemnation of Scripture is clear. But 
it's also important to point out, as I want to do now, that we must not react 
so quickly or so self-righteously to the homosexual agenda that we end up 
hating not just the sin but the sinner as well. Jesus taught that we are to 
rebuke the sinner, but we are also to forgive him if he earnestly repents and 
turns from his sin. Jesus said, "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins 
against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3, NKJv). 
Yes, he maybe weak; he may even fall back and repeat his sin, as Peter 
discovered; but if he genuinely repents, we are told, we are to forgive the 
sin. And that's a part of our mission of recovery and restoration, too. 

In my ministry with the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington DC, 
dealing with Congress and many government and nongovernmental 
organizations on important issues of ethics and morality, I have often had a 
close working relationship with people on the other side of these issues. In 
one case, it was a former Republican congressman who came out of the 
closet. In other cases I've worked with members of Congress who saw these 
problems much differently but who were nevertheless willing to discuss and 
debate them with me. 

It's important to know that we don't need to hate our opponents, and you 
can even have a friendship with some of them, as I have done. The point is 
to try to find common ground so that constructive change can be made. 
Furthermore, we need to share the gospel even as we stand against the 
forces of darkness, for Christ is not willing that any should perish, but that 
all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). We need to make sure that we 
give all who will listen to this admonition the opportunity to experience the 
life-changing redemption of Christ's love. 


The best way to head off the homosexual agenda before it gets any worse 
is to make sure we have an ounce of prevention in the public arena- 
especially in the public schools. That is, to make sure that children have 
mothers and fathers who are good role models. We must uphold the 
standards of stable, two-parent families, and not lower them. Education in 
the public schools is, as we know, a very dangerous area, as the NEA and 
others try to implement a value-neutral moral climate. Parents, churches, 
and community leaders need to be sensitive to every child and the attitudes 
and values they are exposed to. 

We need to show particular concern for those who do not have a father in 
the home or who do not have suitable role models. That should be a 
ministry for the churches: to create an atmosphere where every child can 
feel the security of an adult male who is not sexually motivated but who 
cares about the emotional health of the child. And we need to be involved in 
places where dramatic changes are taking place. Certainly the homosexual 
debate is an area where responsible, well-informed, and conscientious 
intervention is needed. And there's so much to be done. 


I'm convinced that our biggest problem today is that a spirit of timidity has 
silenced the prophetic voice of the church. Paul assures us that, "God has 
not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" 
And he adds, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, 
nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel 
according to the power of God" (2 Tim. 1:7-8, NKJV). 

Just as a physician cannot look away from the sick and injured patient, 
we cannot look away from the man or woman who is trapped in homosexual 
sin. To be faithful to our challenge, we need to help our Christian men to get 
past the point where homosexuality is repulsive to them. What the gay 
movement calls homophobia is, in reality, the natural response of the male 
ego to behaviors that are inherently repulsive to us. But when we understand 
the social disorder of the homosexual and the circumstances that may have 
led to that lifestyle, then our compassion has to be directed at helping them 
find their way out of darkness. 

We have to be able to talk about homosexuality in a very clinical manner. 
We have to be able to describe what and why it is, and to be very clear and 
direct in saying that these practices are, by God's design, harmful and 
potentially fatal activities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
calls them "high-risk behaviors;" and that's exactly what they are. Many 
young boys who run away from home for no other reason than rebellion end 
up finding a man who will father them with a certain amount of freedom 
where they can do what they want, and they end up in a homosexual 
relationship. It's not that they wanted to be homosexual, but that's where 


their rebellion led them. And many girls get into prostitution in much the 
same way. 

It's tragic to see them lined up on the streets of Los Angeles, Greenwich 
Village, or Las Vegas-male and female prostitutes sometimes no more than 
fourteen or fifteen years of age. The only reason they're prostitutes in many 
cases is because they couldn't make enough money any other way. But it's 
equally true that many of them will be dead before they ever reach 
adulthood, either from disease, from accidents, or from violent crime. 

Unfortunately, many men are verbally paralyzed for fear of speaking about 
these problems. Women don't have quite the same reaction to homosexuals 
that most men have, for a very simple reason. Pregnancy and childbirth are 
natural experiences in the context of marriage and family, and for most 
women this is neither strange nor troublesome. Men, however, often find 
themselves in the role of mystified observers who can only look on with awe 
and admiration. By the same token, when a woman encounters a 
homosexual in the workplace, she feels secure in her own sexuality, while 
most men are very uncomfortable in this situation. Men have to leam how to 
recognize what they feel and to express verbally why homosexuality is 

We need to speak, early and often, of the high price to our society if we 
remain blind and mute about what's happening to this nation. If we are 
silent, and if we decide not to leam and to speak out with righteous 
indignation, then it will be our children, their friends, and the entire next 
generation of American society that will be destroyed by it. This is what J. 
D. Unwin says in his book. If a single generation refuses to enforce and hold 
up in a high and honorable way the principles of monogamy in marriage, and 
no extramarital sex, then the next generation will be submerged in 
promiscuity and sexual license, and that's when society loses its cultural 


Some sociologists have suggested that if anything is deeply morally and 
culturally wrong in society, it will eventually become clear to everyone and 
changes will be made. We will say that slavery was a profound cultural 
wrong, which, thanks to men like William Wilberforce in England and the 
abolitionists in America, was eventually reversed. Our policies and laws were 
changed, and our attitudes about the evil practice of slavery were radically 
altered, but not before thousands of lives were lost and not until we had 
endured a tragic civil war in this country that spilled precious blood on both 
sides of the Mason-Dixon line. 

Sometimes societies do make changes of this magnitude, but it may take 
generations for that to happen. If government passes a bad law and no one 


reacts to stop it, it may eventually destroy itself and destroy the people it 
was meant to help. The public may eventually come to their senses and 
repeal a bad law, but when a basic moral law is transgressed, there may be 
thousands or even millions of lives lost before the citizens wake up and turn 
back to a higher moral standard. I'm convinced that our society will one day 
be forced to recognize and admit that homosexuality was a terrible and 
tragic wrong, but are we willing to wait until another generation is lost? Can 
we go any further in the wrong direction before we take action to stop it? 

We can't wait, and I for one am not prepared to watch the slow 
devastation of this great nation in such a manner. The Book of Genesis tells 
us that God's creative order was perfect in the beginning. In Genesis 1:26 we 
read that God made man in His own image. In Genesis 2:18 we see that God 
saw that it was not good for man to be alone without a female. So He says, 
"I will make a helper comparable to him" Then you have the Creation story 
repeated in more detail. 

If you read on to chapter 11 and God's calling of Abraham, you will see 
that Abraham is brought by God out of Ur of the Chaldees, which is modem 
Iraq. And that ancient society was absolutely saturated, not with the nuclear 
family, but with promiscuity and every kind of sexual vice. Homosexuality 
was rampant, and infant sacrifices were common. So God called Abraham 
out of that setting and told him, "You will be the father of many nations" 

That was God's plan. It was His creative order. But, of course, Abraham 
messed up before he became fully obedient. He conceived a child with 
Hagar, the maidservant of his wife Sarah, and he created a generation of 
people who today are very much at odds with everything that has to do with 
Jesus Christ and the Christian gospel. But when Abraham got things back on 
track, God forgave him, and the rest is history. But here's the point. God did 
not want to bring forth a nation in a setting that was saturated with sexual 
perversion and homosexuality. So there was this little monogamous, 
heterosexual tribe, moving around Mesopotamia, in an area that was 
submersed in pedophilia, bisexuality, and every sort of immorality. And God 
brought them out. 


As I've said in many places in this book, the Founding Fathers believed that 
America was a special nation, a chosen people, a shining city on a hill. Some 
called it the New Jerusalem, and they believed America was to be a 
civilization built on that epic model of Israel, as Abraham saw it. It doesn't 
matter whether you're a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian today: This is the 
premise upon which our republic was founded. This was the model on 
which our culture has been built. It is a covenant with God, and that's why 
it's so clear that fornication and adultery and homosexuality and all the ills 
that have been cited in these pages are so absolutely contrary to God's plan 


of order and happiness for mankind. 

We need to remember Benjamin Franklin's words to that woman in the 
crowd when he was leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 
1789. She asked, "Doctor, what have you given us?" To which the old 
gentleman replied, "A republic, if you can keep it" That challenge still 
stands. But with these images in view, I would ask you to consider the 
contrasting portrait of where we actually stand today, threatened not only 
by extremists on the outside but by radical activists in our midst. 

Make no mistake; the homosexual agenda is a strategic plan for war. It is 
not a public policy briefing or a marketing plan: the agenda that has been 
disseminated by the homosexual lobby is a military strategy, a campaign 
map for a war to the death, waged by cunning men upon a supine and self- 
indulgent nation. The media and the cultural elites have already given up. 
The children in our schools and colleges are being turned against us even 
now. To overcome this fearsome campaign, we will need sovereign guidance 
and nerves of steel. The stakes could not be higher, but we have a 
benevolent Defender and Friend on our side. 

I do not exaggerate when I say that this trial by fire will determine the 
very survival of our culture and the fate of civilization as we know it. This is 
not a battle against foreign enemies or third world extremists, but against an 
even greater foe: the forces of darkness and legions of angry homosexuals 
and lesbians determined to abolish Christian virtue and moral judgment in 
any form. We must proceed with caution, and we must come forth with 
open hands. 

We must hear this message in our churches. The battle can be won, but 
only if we work together to push back the darkness of ignorance, apathy, 
and compromise. Now that we have a better understanding of what the 
agenda is all about, we must continue sounding the alarm until the entire 
Christian community is awake and fully engaged. We cannot rest until this 
battle is won, but with God's help, we shall prevail! 



[Due to the age of web links, you can try searching for archived snapshots of 
pages & docs nolonger available at] 


1. Matthew D. Stayer, Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk 

(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 102. 

2. J. W. Curran, et al., "Epidemiology of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United 

States;" Science 239 (February 5, 1988): 610-616. 

3. W. Odets, in a report to the American Association of Physicians for Human 

Rights, cited in E. L. Goldman, "Psychological Factors Generate HIV 
Resurgence in Young Gay Men," Clinical Psychiatry News (October 1994): 5. 

4. B. A. Koblin, et al., "Increased Incidence of Cancer Among Homosexual Men, 

New York City and San Francisco 1978-1990;" American Journal of 
Epidemiology (November 1996): 916-923. 

5. J. M. Palefsky, et al., "Anal Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions in HIV-Positive 

and HIV-Negative Homosexual and Bisexual Men: Prevalence and Risk 
Factors," Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (April 1998): 

6. Goldman, "Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay 


7. Paul Cameron, PhD, William L. Playfair, MD, and Stephen Wellum, "The 

Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic," Omega: 

The Journal of Death and Dying29 (1994): 3, quoted in Dr. D. James 
Kennedy, "Homosexuality," Today's Conflict, Tomorrow's Crisis, copyright 
2001, (accessed April 14, 

8. David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them 

(New York: Haworth Press, 1991), 14. 

9. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity 

Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979). See also: A. 
Bell, M. Weinberg, and S. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development 
in Men and Women (Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press, 1981). 


10. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, "What Is ' A Homosexual, 1 " Journal of the 
Family Research Institute 15 (JuneJuly 2000), http://www.familyresearchin (accessed April 14, 2005). 

11. "NEAPres Bob Chase's Historic Speech From 2000 GLSEN Conference," 
October 7, 2000, news/record/143, 
html (accessed April 12, 2005). 

12. Frank York, "Brave New Schools: Public Employees Teach Kids ' Gay' Sex," 
WorldNetDaily, May 9, 2000, http://www.worldnetdaily.eom/news/article.a 
sp?ARTICLE_ID = 17490 (accessed April 12, 2005). 

13. Douglas Montero, "Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students 
Runs Rampant," New York Post, July 30, 2001. 

14. "Prepared Statement of Daniel E. Troy, Esquire, Associate Scholar, American 
Enterprise Institute, and Partner, Wiley, Rein and Fielding," Hate Crimes 
Violence, hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
Representatives, 106th Congress, August 4, 1999, 70-88, http://commdocs. 
house. gov/committees/judiciary/hju62909.000/hju62909_0f.htm (accessed 
April 12, 2005). 

15. Election 2004, Ballot Measures, 
2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/ (accessed April 12, 2005). 


1. Connie Marshner, "We Told You So: The Homosexual Network, 20 Years 

Later," Free Congress Foundation, February 8, 2002. 

2. James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New 

York: Basic Books, 1991). 

3. Jon Ward, 'Atheist Sues to Ban Hand on Bible," Washington Times, January 

8, 2005, 
(accessed April 12, 2005). 

4. See especially: Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts 

and Hermeneutics (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001). 

5. Joanne Laucius, "Bible: Decision Raises Questions About Freedom of Speech;" 

Ottawa Citizen, June 29, 2001, article accessed at Secular News Headlines, h 
ttp:// (accessed April 12, 2005). See 
also, "A Canadian Civil Rights Ruling Dealing With Anti-Gay Verses in the 
Bible;" (accessed March 
28, 2005). 

6. "Teacher to Be Suspended One Month Without Pay for Writing Against 


Homosexual Agenda in Schools," Vancouver, April 16, 2003, http://www.lif, 
(accessed March 28, 2005). 

7. David Ottewell, "Gay-row Bishop Not to Face ' Hate' Charge;' Manchester 

News, Manchester Online, November 11, 2003, http://www.manchesteronli 
(accessed April 13, 2005). 

8. R. Albert Mohler Jr., "Criminalizing Christianity: Sweden's Hate Speech Law," 

Alex Jones', August 6, 2004, http://www.pris inalizingchristianity.htm 
(accessed April 13, 2005). 

9. "Belgian Cardinal to Be Sued for Remarks on Homosexuality," January 26, 

2004, = 27229 
(accessed April 13, 2005). 

10. "Gay Marriages Issue Sparks Row in Spain;" GMax News, January 6, 2004, ht 
tp:// (accessed April 13, 

11. The goal of the "gay agenda" is spelled out in lurid detail in Marshall Kirk 
and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and 
Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Plume, 1990), 146-147. This is also 
discussed further in this chapter. 

12. Jimmy Breslin, "This Holy Week's a Big, Unholy Mess," Newsday, April 7, 
2004, = 
FT&FMTS = ABS:FT&type = current&date = &author= &pub = &desc =This+Ho 
ly+Week%27s+a+big%2C+unholy+mess (accessed April 13, 2005). 

13. Associated Press, "Newsday Prints Editor's Note on Breslin," Editor & 
Publisher, April 15, 2004, 
display .jsp? vnu_content_id = 1000489327 (accessed April 13, 2005). 

14. Ibid. 

15. Lionel Wright, "The Stonewall Riots-1969," Socialism Today 40 (July 1999). 

16. Norman Markowitz, "Harry Hay: The Great Forerunner,", 
Archives-Dates and Topics / 2004 / April, 
ticle/view/1 19/1/29 (accessed April 13, 2005). 

17. At one point Frank Kameny also tried to take the name Traditional Values 
Coalition away from our organization, which prompted us to register the 
name as a trademark with the United States Patent Office to make certain 
that neither Kameny nor any other group could misuse our name or mislead 
the public about their agenda. 


18. Daniel C. Palm and Tom Krannawitter, "L.A. County's Seal and the Real 
Agenda of the ACLU," Claremont Institute, June 9, 2004 , http://www.dare (accessed April 13 , 2005 ). 

19 . Charles Socarides, MD, "The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual," 
American Journal of Psychotherapy (July 1978 ). 

20 . Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of 
Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981 ), 101 - 154 ; William Dannemeyer, 
Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989 ), 24 - 39 . 

21. Brian Clowes and Steve Frezza, "Homosexuality and the ' Ten Percent' Myth," 
The Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia (Stafford, VA: American Life League, 
1998 ), chapter 116 , (accessed April 
13 , 2005 ). 

22. Ibid. 

23 . Charles W. Socarides, MD, "How America Went Gay;" America (November 
18 , 1995 ), quoted on 
(accessed March 31 , 2005 ). 

24. Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball, quoted in Socarides, "How America Went 

25. Ibid. 

26 . According to federal regulations, as applied by the federal courts and 
agencies such as the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), 
legal minority status is determined upon evidence of being uniquely 
deprived of cultural advantages by virtue of race, religion, physical disability, 
or other unique criteria. To meet the legal definition of a "discreet and 
insular minority" under U.S. law, individuals and groups of individuals must 
be socially, vocationally, economically and educationally disadvantaged, and 
must be clearly identified as individuals who have been faced with 
restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal 
treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our 
society. By none of these criteria do homosexuals qualify for minority status. 
Economically, educationally, socially, and culturally, homosexuals are above 
the national average and come from all segments of society. Clearly, their 
push for "minority" status is a political ploy with no basis in fact. For 
example, see Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 
( 1978 ). 

27. A fuller discussion of these issues follows in chapter ten. 

28. General Colin Powell, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, letter to 
Congresswoman Pat Schroeder as quoted in the Salem Statesman Journal, 
June 6, 1992. 


29. J. D. Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford), 

30. William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the 
American Family (New York: Doubleday, 2001). 

31. For a devastating analysis of the sexual confusion rampant among 
adolescents today, see a report of the pro-homosexual Sexuality Information 
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS): April/May 2001, vol. 
29, no. 4 [ 1. 

This statistical review indicates just how effective, and how tragic, two 
decades of pro-homosexual indoctrination in the nation's classrooms has 
been in eroding sexual morality among children. This report draws on 
statistics from the Minnesota study by E. M. Saewyc, L. H. Bearinger, R. W. 
Blum, and M. D. Resnick, "Sexual Intercourse, Abuse and Pregnancy Among 
Adolescent Women: Does Sexual Orientation Make a Difference?," Family 
Planning Perspectives 31 (May/June 1999): 127-131. 


1. Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide 

Magazine, November 1987. Note also that Erastes Pill is a pseudonym of 
Harvard sociologist Hunter Madsen, who coauthored the book After the Ball, 
cited earlier. 

2. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, 37. 

3. Ibid. 

4. In a volume on female sexuality Kinsey makes the statement, "It is difficult to 

understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be 
disturbed at having its genitalia touched" Furthermore, Dr. Judith Reisman, 
who has conducted the most exhaustive analysis of Kinsey and his 
fraudulent claims, writes that during a conference hosted by the British 
Psychological Association, "an old colleague of Dr. Alfred Kinsey... 
whispered confidentially to me that Kinsey was a pedophile" Although Dr. 
Reisman was surprised by this admission, she was able to corroborate the 
man's assertion as well as Kinsey's link to the group Academic Pedophile 
Advocates. See Judith Reisman, "The APAs: Academic Pedophile Advocates;" 
WorldNetDaily, March 26, 1999, 
le.asp?ARTICLE_ID = 16094 (accessed April 15, 2005). 

5. E. Michael Jones, "The Case Against Kinsey," Fidelity Magazine, April 1989, 

22-35, cited in the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia. 

6. As I reported in our "Talking Points" memo (Vol. 1, No. 2a), the liberal Alan 

Guttmacher Institute reported in Family Planning Perspectives (March/ April 


1993) that less than 2 percent of males had experienced a homosexual 
relationship in the past ten years, and only 1 percent had exclusively 
homosexual relationships. Similarly, the Nation Research Corporation 
(NORC) Survey at the University of Chicago reported a mere 0.7 percent as 
having exclusively homosexual relationships and 2.2 percent having had a 
homosexual relationship in the previous 10 years. Adding to the weight of 
evidence is a United States Census Bureau report showing that less than 2 
percent of men reported even incidental homosexual behavior. And the 
Morton-Hunt Study (commissioned for Playboy magazine) found that about 
1 percent of males and one-half of 1 percent of females are homosexual. 

7. Gershon Legman, The Horn Book: Studies in Erotic Folklore and Bibliography 

(New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964). 

8. Jones, "The Case Against Kinsey" 

9. Judith A. Reisman, et al., Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a 

People-An Investigation Into the Human Sexuality Research of Alfred C. 
Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard 
(Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990). 

10. In an address to members of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalism 
Association (NLGJA) at the National Press Club, April 12, 2000, Richard 
Berke, a national political correspondent for the New York Times, said, "This 
is at a newspaper where not so long ago-when I started there 15 years ago- 
they were keeping lists-the department heads were asking for lists of the gay 
reporters on different sections so they could be punished in different ways. 
So things have really changed at the newspaper. Since I've been there, there's 
been a dramatic shift: I remember coming and wondering if there were ... 
any gay reporters there or whatever. Now it's like, there are times when you 
look at the front-page meeting and... literally three-quarters of the people 
deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted 

homosexuals. .."NLGJA's "View from the Top" Reception was sponsored by 
America Online, USA Today, Washington Post, and CBS News. Reported in 
"Just How ' Gay' Is the New York Times?" in the April-May 2000 issue of The 
Lambda Report. [Source: Washington Times, July 28, 2000, A2. See also:, "The New York Times' Homosexual Culture," October 1, 
2004, = 4070 
8 (accessed April 18, 2005).] 

11. J. Edward Pawlick, Libel by the New York Times (Holliston, MA: Mustard 
Seeds Publishing, 2003). 

12. Ibid. 

13. "Inside Homosexual Journalists' Conference," WorldNetDaily .com, 
September 13, 2000, 
CLE_ID = 17633 (accessed April 18, 2005). 


14. Joseph Farah, "Between the Lines: Activist-Journalists Out of the Closet,", September 13, 2000, http://www.worldnetdaily.eom/n 
ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID = 15046 (accessed April 18, 2005). 

15. Ibid. 

16. "Inside Homosexual Journalists' Conference" 

17. Bert Dawes, compiler, "Story! Story! Story! Walt Disney Speaks,", http://www.savedisney.eom/news/essays/bd043004.l.asp 
(accessed April 5, 2005). 

18. William F. Jasper, "Morality Meltdown," New American 19, June 2, 2003, ht 
htm (accessed April 5, 2005). 

19. "Disney Comes Out of the Closet," Buzz magazine, May 1995, quoted in 
Disney Boycott, 
(accessed April 5, 2005). 

20. Ed Vitagliano, "Disney Execs in Collusion With Homosexual Rights 
Activists," AFA Journal, August 12, 1997. 

21. Sean Griffin, Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company From 
the Inside Out (New York: New York University Press, 2000). 

22. Marshall K. Kirk and Erastus Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America: 
Waging Peace, Part II," Guide Magazine, November 1987, http://www.abidi (accessed April 5, 2005). 

23. Ibid. 

24. Ibid. 

25. Cited in Tony Marco, "'Gay Rights' Strategies Involve Conscious Deception 
and Wholesale Manipulation of Public Opinion," Special Class Protections 
for Self-Alleged Gays: A Question of "Orientation" and Consequences: A 
Public Policy Analysis, 
(accessed April 19, 2005). 

26. Eric M. Pollard, "Time to Give Up Fascist Tactics;" Washington Blade, 
January 31, 1992, 39. 

27. Ibid. 

28. Ibid. 

29. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf [My Struggle], translated by the British Foreign 
Policy Association, 1935, cited in Marco, "'Gay Rights' Strategies Involve 


Conscious Deception and Wholesale Manipulation of Public Opinion." 

30. A. P. Bell, "Homosexualities: Their Range and Character," Paper in Nebraska 
Symposium on Motivation, J. K. Cole and R. Dienstbier, editor (Lincoln, NE: 
University of Nebraska Press, 1973). Paul Cameron, "What Causes 
Homosexuality?" (Lincoln, NE: Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality 
(ISIS), 1984. Table from the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia. 


1. Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality;" 

Insight 232, March 21, 2001, = IS01B1 
(accessed April 19, 2005). 

2. Paul Cameron, William J. Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, "The Homosexual 

Life Span," Family Research Institute, Inc. Washington DC, 1992-1993, http: 

3. Elizabeth Arias, PhD, "United States Life Tables, 2000," National Vital 

Statistics Reports, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 19, 
2002. See Abstract, page 1. 

4. Robert S. Hogg, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in 

Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 
657, cited by Daily, "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality." 

5. Ibid. 

6. Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and 

After the AIDS Epidemic," 249ff. 

7. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and 


8. Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum, "The Homosexual Life Span." See also: Paul 

Gebhard and Alan B. Johnson, The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 
1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research 
(Philiadephia: Saunders, 1979). 

9. The United Nations Report, UNAIDS, estimates 5.3 million new HIV infections 

occurred in 2000. This represents almost 16,000 new cases per day. An 
estimated 3.0 million adults and children died of HIV/ AIDS in 2000. For 
more detail, see the CDC HIV/ AIDS Surveillance Report and the UNAIDS 
AIDS Epidemic Update. For a statistical report of the global incidence of 
AIDS and HIV, go to Family Practice Notebook online at http://www.fpnote 

10. Lionel Wright, "The Stonewall Riots-1969," http://www.socialistaltemative.c 


om/literature/stonewall.html (accessed April 5, 2005). 

11. Simon LeVay, The Sexual Brain (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993). 

12. "Cases of HIV Infection and Aids in the United States, 2002;' HIV/ AIDS 
Surveillance Report 14 (2002), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
quoted in "HIV/ AIDS Statistics;" Facts and Figures, National Institutes of 
Health, (accessed April 
19, 2005). 

13. Paul Cameron, "The High Cost of Sodomy: Part I;" in Journal of the Family 
Research Institute 19 (March 2004): 
R_04_03.html (accessed April 19, 2005). 

14. "HIV and AIDS-United States, 1981-2001," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 
Report (MMWR) 50 (2001): 430-434, quoted in "HIV/AIDS Statistics," Facts 
and Figures, National Institutes of Health, 
ets/aidsstat.htm (accessed April 19, 2005). 

15. Jennifer Oldham, "The Economic Cost of AIDS," Los Angeles Times, October 
13, 1995, Dl. 

16. Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and 

17. American Medical Association (AMA), American Adolescents: How Healthy 
Are They? (1990), 31. 

18. Mireya Navarro, "Federal Officials See Sharp Rise of Hepatitis Among Gay 
Men," New York Times, March 6, 1992. 

19. "Background Information," report by John Li, MD, for ThinkQuest Library, 
(accessed April 20, 2005). 

20. Oldham, "The Economic Cost of AIDS." 

21. "AIDS-Infected Patients Cost Hospitals Up to $260,000 Per Year, Study 
Says," Baltimore Sun, June 1, 1995, 16A. 

22. Peter V. Chin-Hong, et al., "Age-Specific Prevalence of Anal Human 
Papillomavirus Infection in HIV-Negative Sexually Active Men Who Have Sex 
With Men: The EXPLORE Study," Journal of Infectious Diseases 190 
(December 15, 2004): 2070-2076, 
4_OI.htm (accessed April 20, 2005). And the related earlier study: J. M. 
Palefsky, et al., "Prevalence and Risk Factors for Human Papillomavirus 
Infection of the Anal Canal in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 

Positive and HIV Negative Homosexual Men," Journal of Infectious Diseases 
177 (1998): 361-367. 


23. Ibid. 

24. Susan Burner Bankowski and Dr. Brandon Bankowski, "Let's Face the Silent 
Epidemic of STDs," The World & I, June 1999. 

25. "11 Leading Causes of Death, United States, 2002," Webbased Injury 
Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http:// (accessed April 20, 2005). "5 Leading 
Causes of Death, United States, 2002," Web-based Injury Statistics Query 
and Reporting System (WISQARS), National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://webappa.cdc.go 
v/cgi-bin/broker.exe (accessed April 20, 2005). See also: Suicide 
8rLifeThreateningBehavior 28(1) (1998): 1-23. 

26. "Prevalence of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Among University 
Students;" New England Journal of Medicine 323 (1990): 1538-1541. 

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "College HIV Rate Holds Steady, 
but Risk of Exposure Remains High," AIDS Alert 9 (November 1994): 153- 

28. Ibid. 

29. "Suicide: Fact Sheet," National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, htt 
p:// (accessed April 20, 2005). 
See also: Karen W. Arenson, "Worried Colleges Step Up Efforts Over Suicide," 
New York Times, December 3, 2004, IA. 

30. "Suicide: Fact Sheet," National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, htt 
p:// (accessed April 20, 2005). 

31. United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for 
Health Statistics, presented in "Monthly Vital Statistics" for October 11, 


32. National Youth Violence Prevention Center "Youth Suicide Fact Sheet," http: 
// (accessed April 20, 2005). 

33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morbidity and Mortality 
Weekly Report (December 3, 2004): 1108. Used by permission. 

34. [editing-note: the officially published ebook has no reference in the text 
to this footnote, and whatever the print version referenced, the footnote 
listed "Ibid"] 

35. "'New AIDS' Spreading Among Homosexual Men,", June 
2, 2005, = 44 
561 (accessed June 2, 2005). 


36. J. D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams and 
Norgate, 1933). 


1. "Declaration Banned From Classroom," Alliance Defense Fund Press Release, 

November 23, 2004, 
x?mid = 800&cid = 3218 (April 8, 2005). 

2. "U.S. History Documents Banned Because They Mention God," Christianity 

Examiner on the Web, 
%20Jan05/ Art_Jan05_06.html (accessed April 8, 2005). 

3. In that controversial decision, Justice Hugh Black wrote the majority opinion, 

which said in part: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church 
and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not 
approve the slightest breach:" [Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 

4. " and Pro-family Groups Subject to Intimidation from Gay 

Rights Leaders," LifeSite Special Report, May 3, 2004, 
t/ldn/2004/may/040503a.html (accessed April 20, 2005). 

5. Chris Bull, "Balance of justice," The Advocate, March 4, 2003. In the same 

article, the reporter goes on to say: "Some have speculated that justices' 
private musings about Souter's sexual orientation have elevated the level of 
debate about gay rights and the law. ' David Souter isn't gay, as far as 
anyone knows, but there's enough speculation about it that his fellow 
justices have to be a little more careful about what they say, at least in his 
presence,' says a veteran observer of the court who didn't want to be quoted 
by name. ' There's enough vagueness about him as a bachelor in this regard 
to raise the level of debate.... '" 

6. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting), http://caselaw 

. html#opinionl (accessed April 20, 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Jake Tapper, "Court Deals Blow to U.S. Anti-Pom Campaign," January 24, 


(accessed April 8, 2005). 

13. "The Philadelphia Five," AFA Online, 
(accessed April 8, 2005). 

14. Ron Storm. "U.S. Attorneys Complicit in Arrest of Christians?", January 5, 2005, 
/article. asp?ARTICLE_ID = 42221 (accessed April 20, 2005). 

15. While the media publicized the "Philadelphia 5" during the actual 
proceedings, initially eleven people had been arrested and taken into 
custody by the police. When counter-charges were filed, all eleven 
individuals were included in the suit. 

16. Jim Brown, "Christian School Bomb Scare: Caller Demands Public Support 
for Homosexual Marriage;" Agape Press, September 12, 2003. 

17. The United States Senate: Republican Policy Committee, Sen. Jon Kyi, 
Chairman, "The Kennedy ' Hate Crimes' Bill: An Unwise Proposal," United 
States Government Printing Office, July 15, 2003. 

18. Ibid. 

19. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime 
Reports, "Hate Crimes Statistics 2003," November 2004. 

20. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime 
Reports, "Crime in the United States 2003," October 27, 2004, http://www.f See also: Curt Anderson, "FBI Says Murders Up for 
4th Straight Year," Associated Press, October 26, 2004. 

21. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime 
Reports, "Hate Crimes Statistics 2000;" 
te00.pdf. A catalog of hate crimes reporting since passage of the 1990 Hate 
Crimes Act is available at: 

22. Island and Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, 14. 

23. N. E. Murphy. "Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same Sex. 
Domestic Violence," Valparaiso University Law Review 30 (1995): 335. 

24. P. Barnes, "It's Just a Quarrel;" ABA Journal 84 (February 1998): 25. 

25. Unsigned editorial, "The Hate Politics;" Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2001. 

26. Ronald Pestritto, "The Ideology of Hate Crimes;" Claremont Institute, posted 
October 30, 1998, 
1 (accessed April 8, 2005). 


27. Ibid. 

28. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity 
Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 


1. "ACLU Behind Illinois' Forced Hiring of ' Gays;", January 

26, 2005, = 4 
2563 (accessed April 20, 2005). 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4 . Stuart Shepard, "ENDA Passes Senate Committee;" Family Research Council 

Forum, April 30, 2002, 

5. According to Simmons Market Research Bureau, a consumertracking firm, the 

average homosexual is better educated and has a higher income than the 
typical heterosexual. A 1990 Simmons study found that 53 percent of 
homosexuals hold professional or management jobs, compared with the 
national average of 34 percent in the general population; 61 percent have 
graduated from college, compared with only 24 percent nationally; and the 
average homosexual household income is $53,000 compared with $35,000 
nationally. Homosexual households, the researchers said, are twice as likely 
as the typical household to have incomes over $60,000, and they're also 
twice as likely as the general populace to have incomes over $250,000. 

See: Marcia Philbin, "Branching Out," Miami Daily Business Review, October 
6, 2000, A13; and Ronald Alsop, "Are Gay People More Affluent Than 
Others?" Wall Street Journal, December 30, 1999. 

6 . Mark Tooley, "Mainstreaming Homosexuality;" Touchstone, September- 

October 1999, = 1 
2-05-058-r (accessed April 20, 2005). 

7. Ibid. 

8. James W. Button, Barbara Rienzo, and Kenneth Wald, Private Lives, Public 

Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities (Washington 
DC: Congressional Quarterly Books, 1997). 

9. Information in the following two sections of this chapter is adapted from the 

following article: Bo Davis, "Business as Unusual: Firms Go Gay Friendly," 
World, April 26, 1997, 16-17. 


10. Adapted from Bo Davis, "Business as Unusual: Firms Go Gay Friendly;" 
World, April 26, 1997, 16-17. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. Ct. App. 2004). See 
also: David Watson, "Ninth Circuit Upholds Firing for Posting Anti-Gay 
Messages: Court Rejects Worker's Claim of Discrimination Based on 
Religious Beliefs;" Metropolitan NewsEnterprise (Los Angeles), January 7, 
2004, 1. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Lawrence Morahan, "Former Homosexual Alleges EEOC Bias in 
Investigation;", August 29, 2001. 

15. For example: Walter Olson, "When Sensitivity Training Is the Law," Wall 
Street Journal, January 20, 1993. Also: Seth Lubove, "Damned If You Do, 
Damned If You Don't," Forbes 160, December 15,1997,122. 

16. Susan Jones, "Don't Base Civil Rights on Behavior, Group Warns,", January 12, 2005, 
p?Page = %5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200501%5CCUL20050112a.html 
(accessed April 8, 2005). 

17. Ibid. 

18. Ibid. 

19. Carolyn Lochhead, "White House Affirms Gay Workers' Rights: It Says 
Discrimination Against Federal Employees Is Barred-but Democrats Aren't 
Convinced," San Francisco Chronicle, April 1, 2004. 

20. Todd Henneman, "Diversity Training Addresses Sexual Orientation," 
Workforce Management, December 2004, 
on/Il/feature/23/90/44/239046.html (accessed April 21, 2005). 

21., "Scripture and Homosexuality, Part 2: An Interview With Robert A. 
J. Gagnon: Modem Arguments Don't Undercut Biblical Teaching," March 28, 
2002, Code ZE02032820, (accessed April 21, 

22. Cited in James Lileks, Chris Gallagher, Tait Trussell, "Scan: Short News and 
Commentary," American Enterprise Online, June 2001, http://www.taemag. 
com/issues/articleID.15516/article_detail.asp (accessed April 21, 2005). 

23. These and subsequent citations draw on comments by Paul E. Rondeau, 
"Selling Homosexuality to America;" Regent University Law Review 14 
(Spring 2002). 


24. Tori DeAngelis, "New Data on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Mental Health," 
American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology 33 (February 
2002), (accessed April 
21, 2005). 

25. Margaret Rosario, "Understanding the Unprotected Sexual Behaviors of Gay, 
Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths: An Empirical Test of the Cognitive- 
Environmental Model," Health Psychology (May 1999): 272-280. 

26. Deb Price, "Supreme Court Needs to Look the Contradiction in the Eye," 
Windy City Times, January 8, 2003, 
gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID = 1630 (accessed Feb. 12, 2005). 

27. Ronald Reagan, quoted in "Remarks by President at Prayer Breakfast, New 
York Times, August 24, 1984, All. 


1. Robert Knight. "Homosexuality in an Age of Consent," The Salt and Light 

Handbook (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1999). 

2. "The 1972 Gay Rights Platform;" created at the National Coalition of Gay 

Organizations Convention, Chicago 1972, 
sissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platformI972.htm (accessed April 11, 

3. Lesea Newman, the author of Heather Has Two Mommies, has also written My 

Lover Is a Woman and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, about a little girl's day at 
the "Gay Pride Parade" and how this affects her understanding of life with 
her two mommies, one of whom works as a nurse and the other is a 

4. Liberal organizations at the forefront of the movement aggressively promoting 

the homosexual agenda include groups such as the National Education 
Association (NEA), the ACLU, People for the American Way, and the 
alphabet soup of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered organizations, 
which now also includes a socalled "questioning" group that is actually a 
recruiting ploy used in the schools. Many public schools now have a 
"lesbian, gay, and straight alliance," or an LGBTQ group, organized to enlist 

5. "The Gay'90s: A Response to the Gay Activist Movement," Critical Issues 1, ht 

tp:// (accessed April 11, 2005). 

6. Portions of Mrs. Hill's story are related in Le Templar, "Shine Draws Attack: 

Janie Hill Wants Councilman Removed," Times Record News (Wichita Falls), 
February 13, 1999. 


7. Hans Zeiger, "The NEA and GLSEN vs. America," July 2, 2004, (accessed April 21, 2005). 

8. Ibid. 

9. The explanation given by the homosexual lobby for the high suicide rate 

among teens is a total fabrication. The high rate of suicides for those who 
experiment with homosexuality is due to the fact that they not mature 
enough to deal with the volatile emotions and the obvious immorality of a 
lifestyle they know instinctively to be wrong. 

10. "Case Background: Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District," ACLU of 
Northern California, 
1 (accessed April 11, 2005). 

11. For example, see: Louis P. Sheldon, "Here It Comes: Transgender Confusion 
on Campus;' Traditional Values Coalition, May 2004, http://www.traditional 
values. org/modules.php?name = News&file = article&sid = 944. 

12. I highly recommend the book by Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of 
Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Northvale, NJ: J Aronson, 

13. Rex Wockner, "Taking Charge: Matt Foreman of NGLTF," Windy City Times, 
June 25, 2003, http://www.windycitymediagroup.eom/gay/lesbian/news/A 
RTICLE.php? AID = 3366 (accessed April 21, 2005). 

14. Julie Foster, "California Schools' New Homosexual Curriculum,", December 26, 2000, http://www.worldnetdaily.eom/n 
ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID = 21132 (accessed April 11, 2005). 

15. James Lileks, Chris Gallagher, Tait Trussell, "Scan: Short News and 
Commentary," American Enterprise Online, June 2001, http://www.taemag. 
com/issues/articleID.15516/article_detail.asp (accessed April 21, 2005). 

16. "Critics Target Discount Chain for Banning Salvation Army,", 
(accessed April 21, 2005). 

17. More about this activity can be viewed at 

18. More about this activity can be viewed at http://www.educationnews.Org/n 
o-name-calling-week-coalition.htm , , 

19. Information about this activity may be viewed at http://www.glsenla.jeffmo 

20. Karla Jay and Allen Young, ed.. Lavender Culture (New York: New York 


University Press, 1994). 

21. Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the 
Grand Scheme (Arlington, VA: Institute for Media Education, 1998). 

22. Ibid. 

23. Frank York, "Brave New School: Public Employees Teach Kids ' Gay' Sex," 
WorldNetDaily, May 9, 2000, 
CLE_ID = 17490 (accessed April 11, 2005). 

24. "Governor's Commission for Gay Youth Retreats to ' Safety' and ' Suicide," 
Massachusetts News, December 2000, 
ues/2000/12-Dec/1200fist3.htm (accessed April 22, 2005). 

25. Ibid. 

26. Ibid. 

27. Paul Gibson, "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide," (Washington DC: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, 1989), in Report of the 
Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, ed. Marcia R. Feinleib, January 

28. Dr. Louis W. Sullivan MD, Secretary of Health and Human Services, letter to 
Representative William E. Dannemeyer, October 1989, quoted in Peter 
LaBarbera, "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth," 
arbera.html (accessed April 25, 2005). 

29. LaBarbera, "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth." 

30. "Homosexuality and the Schools," The Christian Activist, http://www.thechr (viewed April 11, 

31. George A. Clowes, "Outcome-Based Education: Remaking Society One Child 
at a Time," School Reform News, April 1, 1998, http://www.heartland.Org/A 
rticle.cfm?artld = 12713 (accessed April 11, 2005). 

32. Phil Sringer, "Outcome-Based Education," Independent American Party 
dEducation.html (accessed April 25, 2005). 

33. Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball. 

34. References cited here were assembled by "The Person Project" Web site, http 
(accessed March 1, 2005). 



1. Cited by Stanley Kurtz in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Weekly Standard, August 4, 


2. "Transgender Marriage Is Coming;" Traditional Values Coalition Special 

Report, files/TransgenderMarriage.pdf 
(accessed April 11, 2005). Also see, Connie Parish, "Couple Tries to Move on 
After Arrest," Leavenworth Times, March 21, 2004, http://www.leavenworth 
times. com/articles/2004/03/21/news/news01.txt (accessed April 25, 


3. David Poponoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "The State of Our Unions: The 

Social Health of Marriage in America, 2000," Rutgers University, The 
National Marriage Project, http://marriage.rutgers.edU/Publications/SOOU/S 
OOU.htm (accessed April 25, 2005). 

4. Ibid. 

5. Jan E. Stets, "Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social 

Isolation," Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 669-680. 

6. "Psychological Reasons Not to Live Together," from All About Cohabiting 

Before Marriage, 
(accessed April 25, 2005). 

7. Scott Stanley, A Lasting Promise: A Christian Guide to Fighting for Your 

Marriage (San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1998). 

8. Charles W. Socarides, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Phoenix, AZ: Adam 

Margrave Books, 1995). Excerpt available at 
eedom.html (accessed April 25, 2005). 

9. Ibid. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Andrew Jacobs, "Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex;" New York 
Times, February 14, 2005, Al. 

12. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, 

MI: Baker, 1996), 186. 

13. M. F. Schwartz and W. H. Masters, "The Masters and Johnson Treatment 
Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men," American Journal of Psychiatry 
141 (1984): 173-181. 

14. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 25-26. 


15. Joseph Farah, "Right and Wrong,", July 6, 1999, http:// = 14773 (accessed April 
25, 2005). 

16. Donna Freydkin, "Getting to Know You: Sitcoms Field Gay Characters," CNN 
Interactive, May 17, 1999, 
out/ (accessed March 1, 2005). Also, Celida B. Miramontes, "GLAAD Tackles 
Media: The Depiction of Gays and Lesbians Has Improved, but Remains 
Cliche," New University Newspaper (UC Irvine), April 25, 2001, http://www. 
(accessed March 1, 2005). 

17. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave;" Out, December 1993-January 1994. 

18. "Poll Shows Most Americans Oppose Same-Sex Marriage;", = 
2163 (accessed April 25, 2005). 

19. Stayer, Same-Sex Marriage, 64. 

20. Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," Weekly Standard, August 4-11, 2003, 
38xpsxy.asp (accessed April 25, 2005). 

21. Lisa Leff, "Mayor Calls for Gay Marriage Support," Associated Press, February 
13, 2005. 

22. Rona Marech, "3,000 Jam City Hall to Celebrate Anniversaries S.F.'s Mayor;" 
San Francisco Chronicle, February 13, 2005, 
/article.cgi?f = /c/a/2005/02/13/SAMESEX.TMP (accessed April 25, 2005). 

23. Ibid. 

24. Chris Crain, "It's All About Marriage;" Washington Blade, August 22, 2003. 

25. Maggie Gallagher, "What Marriage Is For," Weekly Standard, August 11, 


26. Clifford Krauss, "Now Free to Marry, Canada's Gays Say, ' Do I? 1 " New York 
Times, August 31, 2003. 

27. Kelly Boggs, "The Homosexual Hoopla Is Backfiring," BP News, March 19, 


28. Ibid. 

29. Richard N. Ostling, "The 2004 Election Reinforced America's Religious and 
Moral Divide;" Associated Press, November 4, 2004. 



1. Roper v. Simmons 112 S.W. 3d 397 (2005). 

2. Van Orden v. Perry (03-1500) and McCreary County v. ACLU of KY (03-1693) 

(under review). 

3. George Gallup Jr. and Timothy Jones, The Next American Spirituality: Finding 

God in the Twenty-first Century (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook 
Communications, 2000). 

4. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand 

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 

5. Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in 

America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1984). 

6. "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, January 14, 1639;" University of 

Oklahoma Law Center,, emphasis 
added (accessed April 11, 2005). 

7. "The Mayflower Compact, 1620," University of Oklahoma Law Center, http:// (accessed April 11, 2005). 

8. Ibid. 

9. Jack Kinsella, "America's Communist Lawyer's Union;" Omega Letter, 

December 2, 2004. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Author interview with Delegate Don Dwyer, Maryland State House, February 
16, 2005. 

12. Father John Corapi, "The Laity in the Church: A Sleeping Giant;" http://dales (accessed April 25, 2005). 

13. Ibid. 


1. Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between 

Church and State (New York: NYU Press, 2002). 

2. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. by George Lawrence, ed. 

by J. P. Mayer (N.p.: 1988), 293. 

3. Newt Gingrich, "Values and Bush's Victory," San Diego Union-Tribune, 


November 7, 2004, 
news_mzle7newt.html (accessed April 26, 2005). 

4. Interview with Pat Robertson, "Gingrich Outlines Steps to Win the Future of 

America," The 700 Club, January 14, 2005, 
news/050114a.asp (accessed April 26, 2005). 

5. Ibid. 

6 . Author Joe Dallas, who is president of Exodus International, warns that the 

causes of homosexuality are too complex and too variable from person to 
person to render a blanket analysis. However, he says, in most of the cases 
he has observed over many years that homosexuality develops early in life 
and involves (1) a child's perception of his or her relationship to parents or 
significant others, (2) a child's emotional response to those perceptions and 
responses, (3) emotional needs arising from these perceptions and 
responses, and (4) the sexualization of those emotional needs. For a fuller 
discussion of these issues, see: Joe Dallas. Desires in Conflict: Answering the 
Struggle for Sexual Identity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1991), 91-94. 

7. Jeff Jacoby, "Same-Sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights," Boston Globe, March 8, 


8. Ibid. 

9. "Statement and Request to the Congressional Black Caucus From the National 

Summit of African-American Pastors, Washington D.C.," Traditional Values 
Coalition, September 8, 2004, http://web. archive. org/web/*/http://traditio (accessed April 11, 2005). 

10. "Congressional Black Caucus Member Attacks AfricanAmerican Pastors," 
Traditional Values Coalition, http://web.archive.Org/web/Vhttp://tradition = 1949 (accessed April 11, 2005). 

11. See the entire article: Louis P. Sheldon, "Hey, Governor, the GOP Won!" Los 
Angeles Times, December 29, 2004. 


1. Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy 

(Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair Co. in cooperation with the Free Congress 
Research and Education Foundation, 1982). See also: Enrique T. Rueda and 
Michael Schwartz, Gays, AIDS, and You. (Greenwich, CT: The Devin Adair 
Company, 1987), 70-71. 

2. "Sexual Orientation: Fixed or Changeable," Traditional Values Coalition, http:/ 

/web. archive. org/web/*/ 
ation.pdf (accessed April 11, 2005). 


3. "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, 

Educators and School Personnel;' APA Online,* 
/ (accessed April 
11, 2005). 

4. "Gay-to -Straight Research Published in APA Journal," NARTH (National 

Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, 
s/throckarticle.html (accessed April 26, 2005). 

5. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson, "Homosexuality: The 

Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science," Salt Lake Tribune, 
May 27, 2001. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Camille Paglia, Vamps and Tramps (New York: Vintage Books, 1994). 

8. Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of California, San 

Diego, California, News Release, March 1, 2005, 
o/cas/pr/cas50301.2.pdf (accessed April 11, 2005). 

9. Linda Ames Nicolosi, "Should These Conditions Be Normalized?" NARTH, 

October 6, 2004, (accessed 
April 11, 2005). 

10. Mary Eberstadt, "'Pedophilia Chic' Reconsidered," The Weekly Standard, 
January 8, 2001. 

11. I Do Exist: Is a Changed Life Possible?, 
oexist.asp (accessed April 11, 2005). 

12. Diane Mattingly, "My Path to Lesbianism," Christianity Today, February 
2005, 62. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Michael Lumberger, "Walking in the Light;' Exodus International, http://ww 
(accessed April 26, 2005). 

15. "Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations," number 1593, Benjamin 
Franklin, (accessed April 26, 




Bennett, William J. The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the 
American Family. New York: Doubleday, 2001. 

Brinkmann, Susan. The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose on the Most Influential 
"Scientist" of Our Time (based on the work of Judith Reisman, et al.). 
West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004. 

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand 
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 

Comiskey, Andrew. Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the 
Homosexual. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 1988. 

Dallas, Joe. When Homosexuality Hits Home. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 

. Desires in Conflict. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003. 

. How Should We Respond? An Exhortation to the Church on Loving the 
Homosexual. Colorado Springs: Focus on the Family, 1999. 

Davies, Bob and Lela Gilbert. Portraits of Freedom: 14 People Who Came 
Out of Homosexuality. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. 

Davies, Bob and Lori Rentzel. Coming Out of Homosexuality: New Freedom 
for Men and Women. Downers Grover, IL: InterVarsity, 1993. 

Dreisbach, Daniel, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between 
Church and State. New York: NYU Press, 2002. 

Floyd, Ronnie W. The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and 
a Nation. Los Angeles, CA: New Leaf Press, 2004. 

Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexuality: Texts and Hermeneutics. 
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000. 

Gallup Jr., George and Timothy Jones. The Next American Spirituality: 
Finding God in the Twenty-first Century. Colorado Springs: Cook 
Communications, 2000. 

Haley, Mike. 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality. 
Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, 2004. 


Hamburger, Philip. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
Press, 2002. 

Howard, Jeanette. Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind. Nashville, TN: 
Thomas Nelson, 1994. 

Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New 
York: Basic Books, 1991. 

Island, David and Patrick Letellier. Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them. 
New York: Haworth Press, 1991. 

Miller, Zell. A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative 
Democrat. Macon, GA: Stroud & Hall, 2003. 

Nicolosi, Joseph. Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative 
Therapy. Northvale, NJ: J Aronson, 1993. 

. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 
Northvale, NJ: J Aronson, 1997. 

Reisman, Judith A. Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People- 
An Investigation Into the Human Sexuality Research of Alfred C. Kinsey, 
Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard. Lafayette, 
LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 

. Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme. Arlington, 
VA: Institute for Media Education, 1998. 

Rueda, Enrique T. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 
Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair Co. in cooperation with the Free Congress 
Research and Education Foundation, 1982. 

Satinover MD, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand 
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996. 

Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the 
Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995. 

Socraides, Charles. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Phoenix, AZ: Adam 
Margrave 1995. 

Stayer, Matthew D. Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk. 
Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004. 

Unwin, J. D. Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 




Abel, Gene 145 
abortion 229, 232 
abstinence 31 
Abzug, Rep. Bella 112 
American Civil Liberties Union 
(ACLU) 21, 107, 134, 137, 
142, 144, 178, 180, 187, 188, 
202, 230 

ACT UP 50,51,96 

Adams, John 78, 79 

Adorno, Theodor 20 

adultery 30, 36 

affirmative action 26 

affirming churches 214 

African Americans 4, 28, 205-209, 


American Federation of Teachers 
(AFT) 132 
After the Ball 24 
age of consent 26, 229 
Alliance Defense Fund 79, 108 
alternative lifestyle 2, 48, 52 
American Bar Association (ABA) 

American Family Association 86, 

American Psychiatric Association 
(APA) 4,21-23. 60, 229 
American Psychological 

Association 60, 139, 225 
Amin, Idi 36 

Anti- Defamation League (ADL) 43 
Antichrist, agenda of 186 
antidiscrimination 49, 107, 114, 
120, 141, 171,214 
anti-antidiscrimination 83 
Ashcroft, Attorney General John 



Americans United for the 

Separation of Church and 
State (AUSCS) 134 
authority, parental 145 


Bailey, Michael 61 
Baldwin, Roger 188 
Ball, Alan 45 
Bankowski, Brandon 65 
Bankowski, Susan 65 
Barbary Coast 17 
Barna Research Group 180 
Battalion, Joseph 165 
“Beat” Generation 19 
Bennett, William 31 
Bible 8, 12, 79, 117, 118, 122, 155, 
161, 163, 169, 185, 186, 190, 
194, 201,236-239 
and judgment of homosexuality 

biblical standards 125 

Bicks, Jenny 44 

Big Brother 130 

“Big Lie” 48,49,51,52, 130 

bigotry 128 

bigotry, anti-Christian 105, 134, 
Birch, Elizabeth 45, 46 
Black, Justice Hugo L. 199, 200 
Blackmun, Justice Harry 37 
Blagojevich, Gov. Rod 107, 108, 


Blaine Amendments 199 
Blair, Ezell 206 
Bloch, Scott 120 
body politick 185 
Boggs, Kelly 172, 173 
Boone, Pat 210 
“born gay” myth 6, 28, 52, 53, 
60-62, 139, 225, 226 


Boston Globe 41 
Bowers v. Hardwick 81 
Boy Scouts of America 26, 38, 131, 
136, 142, 188, 224 
brainwashing 43 
Breslin, Jimmy 16, 17 
Briggs, Senator John 211 
Bright Line Bill 183 
Brokaw, Tom 42 
Bryant, Anita 75, 210 
Bush, President George H. W. 72 
Bush, President George W. 14, 60, 
120, 173, 174 


“camel in the tent” 149 
Cameron, Paul 57 
Carson, D. A. 179, 180 
Carter, President Jimmy 188 
Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) 6, 58, 66, 
124, 237 

Ceausescu, Nicolae 36 
Chinese Cultural Revolution 24 
Christian values 1, 3, 27, 79, 116, 

Christianity 32, 40, 74, 81 
assault on 3, 15 

church and state 74, 183-186, 199, 

200, 210 

civil rights 1, 4, 111, 116, 172, 201, 
206-208, 230 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 112 
civil unions 120, 167-170 
civilization 32, 55, 56, 72, 122, 123, 
155, 158 

history of 11, 29, 30, 31 
Claremont Institute 94 
Clinton, President Bill 71, 165 
Clinton, Senator Hillary 212 
Close, Glenn 44 
Cohen, Bruce 45 
Cohen, Jaffe 47 


Communist Party USA 19, 49, 136, 

compassion 15 
Concord Academy 136 
Congressional Black Caucus 
(CBC) 207, 208 

Constitution 177, 198, 200, 204, 
219, 240 

amending 170, 171 
conversion 24, 25 
Corapi, Father John 193, 194 
Corso, Gregory 19 
Couric, Katie 42 
covenant 239 
covenant society 203, 204 
Crain, Chris 171, 172 
Crenshaw Christian Center 208 
Cruse, James 85 
cultural energy 29 
cultural revolution 106 
culture war 13, 14, 105, 240 
culture 140, 194 
American 225 
dismantling of 49 
homosexual 106, 109 
homosexual-friendly 93, 121 
lavender 144 
of death 194 
secular 73 
sexualized 215 
Cummins, Mary 148 


Daddy’s Roommate 131-134 
Dailey, Timothy J. 54 
Dannemeyer, Bill 97 
Daschle, Senator Tom 203 
Daughters of Bilitis 22 
Davis, Gov. Gray 141, 212 
Dean, Howard 212 
death penalty 177 
death threats 70 
deception 129, 163, 181 


Declaration of Independence 79, 

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 

Department of Justice (DOJ) 86, 

depression 124 
desensitization 24, 25, 123 
destructive forces 13 
Diener, Mark 85 
Diggs, John R. 4 
Diller, Barry 45 
discrimination 126 
diseases 14, 36, 53-57, 62-66, 70, 
72, 124, 125, 160, 161 
disinformation 14, 27, 44, 48-53, 
58, 67, 69, 124, 129, 131, 148, 
168, 225, 231 

Disney Company 45-47, 114 
Disney Studios 46 
diversity 2, 71,81, 115, 116, 119, 
125, 129, 158, 179 
diversity training 114, 141 
Dixon, Mary 107 
Dobson, Dr. James 103 
domestic partners 112, 117, 133, 

domestic violence 92, 93, 157 
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” 142 
DreamWorks Studios 45 
Dreisbach, Daniel 200 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 
(DSM) 21-23 
Dugas, Gaetan 58 
Dwyer, Delegate Don 189-192 


Eberstadt, Mary 230 
Echoes of Faith Church 97 
Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) 71, 72 
Eichel, Edward W. 39, 40 
Eisner, Michael 45, 46, 72 
Elders, Joycelyn 229 


Ellerbee, Linda 42, 44 
Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act (ENDA) 109-111, 116 
equal rights 1, 111 
Escobar, Ramon 42 
Ettelbrick, Paula 154, 155, 164 
evangelical juggernaut 200, 201, 

Everson v. Board of Education 80, 
199, 200 

ex-gays 70, 231-233 
Exodus International 205, 226, 
232, 233 

Extreme Associates 84 


Fahling, Brian 86 
Fairfax High School (Los Angeles) 
134, 135, 136 
fairness 113, 114 
faith, family, and freedom 13 
faith, loss of 31 
family formation 157 
family values 75, 174 
traditional 166 

Family Research Council 87, 108, 

Farah, Joseph 162 
Father Knows Best 43 
feminism 14 
Ferguson, Gil 97 
firebombing 87 

First Amendment 92, 99, 111, 199, 

Focus on the Family 103, 107 
Ford Foundation 38 
Ford, Rep. Harold 208 
Foreman, Matt 120, 140 
Forster, Peter 15 

Founding Fathers 9, 111, 165, 187, 
190, 200-202, 216, 239 
Fourth Amendment 92 
Frank, Rep. Barney 98, 110, 214 
Franklin, Benjamin 240 


freedom of religion 181,216 
freedom of speech 87, 181, 182, 

Freedom to Marry 172 
French Quarter 17 
Fuentes, Joe 114 
“full faith and credit” 81 
Fundamental Orders of 

Connecticut 183, 184, 187 


Gagnon, Robert A. J. 35, 36, 122, 

GAL AXE 113 

Gallup Poll of Religion 178, 179 
Gallup, George 179 
Gardiner, Marshall 156 
Gast, Sandy 156 
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against 
Defamation (GLAAD) 41, 
44,81, 163,218 
Gay Activists Alliance 22 
Gay and Lesbian Day 46 
Gay and Lesbian Human Rights 
Commission 155 
gay and lesbian studies 21 
Gay Day Parade 50 
gay gene 139, 226 
Gay, Lesbian and Straight 
Educational Network 
(GLSEN) 7, 44, 132, 136- 
138, 142-146 

Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers 
Network (GLSTN) 138 
gay rights 2, 3, 24, 26, 27, 47, 59, 
60, 129, 139, 158 

Gay Rights, Special Rights 189, 191, 

Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) 136 
Geffen, David 45 
gender confusion 119, 157, 161 
gender identity 120, 138, 143 
conflict 69 
disorder (GID) 156 


Gibson, Mel 215 
Gibson, Paul 147 
Gingrich, House Speaker Newt 
202, 203, 204 
Ginsburg, Allen 19 
Ginsburg, Justice Ruth Bader 229, 

God’s creative order 155-157, 169, 
180, 238, 239 
Goldman, E. L. 5 
Gore, Vice President A1 60 
Governor’s Commission on Gay 
and Lesbian Youth 147 
Gramsci, Antonio 20 
Great Commission 193 
Green, Dennis 85 
Greenwich Village 17, 59, 237 
Greer, Ron 93 
Griffin, Sean 47 
Gutierrez, Noe 231 


Haley, J. Evetts 183 
Hamer, Dean 27, 61, 62, 226 
Hamilton Square Baptist Church 

Hannon, Gerald 144, 145 
hate crimes 7, 8, 16, 80, 87-91, 94, 
95, 107, 109, 133, 141, 142, 

hate speech 16, 48, 95, 125, 139 
Hay, Harry 19, 20 
Health and Human Services, 
Department of 148 
Heather Has Two Mommies 131— 

hedonism 27, 35, 58, 72 
Heflin, Senator Howell 71 
heritage, Christian 185 
Hideki, Tojo 36 
Hill, Janie 133, 134 
Hillsdale College 136 
Hispanics 28, 208 


Hitler, Adolf 36, 44, 51, 76, 84, 101, 
130, 138, 181 

HIV/ AIDS 4-6, 56-58, 62-69, 123, 
125, 145, 146, 159, 160, 170, 
188, 207, 234, 235 
infection rates 4 

Hollywood 40-47, 124, 160-163, 
202, 203,210-212 
homo-fascist tactics 88, 100-105 
homosexual clubs 136 
Homosexual Day of Silence 137, 

homosexual gene 60, 61 ( See also-. 
gay gene) 

homosexual marriage 26, 41, 58, 
81, 82, 113, 120, 130, 140, 
154, 156, 163-168, 172, 173, 
206, 207, 228, 231 
homosexual movement 2, 3, 17- 
25, 56, 59,82,106, 109,110, 
115, 122, 123, 128, 141, 156, 
188,201,209,210,216, 221, 
226, 230, 240 

Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far 

Hooker, Thomas 183 
House UnAmerican Activities 
Committee 19, 49 
Howe, James 143 
Hull, Gov. Jane 188 
human papillomavirus (HPV) 64, 

human rights 15, 107 
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) 
45,81, 112, 114, 116, 146, 
218, 224 

Hunter, James Davison 13 
Hussein, Saddam 36 
Hyperion Press 46, 47 


Illinois Family Institute 107, 119 
“incrementalism” 230 


indoctrination 111, 130, 134, 146, 
infections 5, 65 
Innes, David 102, 103 
Institute on Religion and 
Democracy 110 
Internet 32, 122, 132, 162, 217, 
218, 22 7 
intervention 235 
intimidation 117, 121, 129, 130, 
133, 140, 144 
Island, David 92 
It’s Elementary 131, 138, 231 


Jackson, President Andrew 199 
Jacobs, James B. 94 
Jacoby, Jeff 205, 206 
jamming 24, 25 

Jefferson, President Thomas 195, 
199, 203,204 

Jefferson, Rep. William 208 
Jennings, Kevin 132, 136, 146, 147 
Jennings, Peter 42 
Jinks, Dan 45 

Johnson, Senator Lyndon 182, 183 
Jones, Timothy 179 
Joos, Gustaaf 16 
judgment 12, 73, 109 
biblical 117 
eternal 191, 221 
of homosexual sin 8, 12, 18, 35, 
117, 221-223, 235, 236, 239 
moral 84, 134, 201,218, 221, 

judicial activism 14, 26, 203-207 


Kaiser, Charles 160 
Kameny, Frank 20 
Kardiner, Abraham 22 
Kennedy, President John 111, 112 
Kennedy, Senator Ted 89, 90, 94, 


Kerouac, Jack 19 
Kerry, Senator John 9, 60, 173 
King, Coretta Scott 208 
King, Martin Luther, Jr. 206, 208 
King, Rodney 94 
Kinsey Institute 38, 39 
Kinsey, Alfred 6, 37-40, 52, 57, 145 
Kirk, Marshall 24, 27, 34, 48-50, 
123, 149 

Kleinplatz, Peggy 229 
Knight, Robert 87, 88, 128 
“Know Nothings” 199 
Kofman, Jeffrey 42 
Kohl, Frank 156 
Kramer, Larry 160 
Krupski, Jim 88 
Kurtz, Stanley 166, 167 
Kyi, Senator John 90 


LaBarbera, Peter 108, 119 
Lafferty, Andrea 103 
Lafferty, James 222, 223 
LaHaye, Beverly 71 
Lancaster, Gary 84 
lavender mafia 42, 44 
Lawrence v. Texas 25, 81, 82, 84 
Leave It to Beaver 43 
Legman, Gershon 116 
Letellier, Patrick 92 
LeTourneau, Jeff 96 
LeVay, Simon 27, 61, 62, 226 
Levine, Judith 229 
Lewis, Rep. John 207 
life expectancy 56-58, 67 
Lincoln, President Abraham 33 
Lisaius, Ken 120 
“live and let live” 15, 47, 189, 211 
Living Waters 233 
Lloyd, Lauren 46 
Lopez, Ben 168 
Ludlow, Roger 183 
Luksik, Peg 148 
Lumberger, Michael 232-234 



Mackey, Connie 109 
Madison, Paula 42 
Madison, President James 203 
Madsen, Hunter 24, 27, 123, 149 
mainline churches, demise of 209, 

Marcavage, Michael 85 
March on Washington (of 1993) 3, 

Marco, Anton V. 49, 50, 51, 132 
Marcuse, Herbert 20 
marriage 9, 31 
civil 169 

defense of 75, 166 
destruction of 164 
homosexual 26 (See also : 
homosexual marriage) 
sanctity of 165, 231 
traditional 29, 207 
Marshner, Connie 12 
Martin, Clyde 37 
Martin, Walter 209, 210 
Maslow, Abraham 39 
Masters and Johnson 161 
Mattachine Society 19-22 
Mattingly, Diane 232 
Mayflower Compact 184-187 
McCain, Franklin 206 
McCaleb, Gary 79 
McCarthy, Joseph 19 
Mcllhenny, Charles 87, 102 
McLaughlin, John 98 
McNeil, Joseph 206 
McWilliams, Danny 47 
media complicity 3, 25-27, 34, 
43-47, 63,81, 124, 160,211, 
212, 240 

Meehan, William Austin 86 
Mein Kampf 51, 84 
Meron, Neil 44 
Miller, Senator Zell 174 
molestation 135, 136, 145 


Moore, Michael 203 
moral authority 122 
moral judgment 84, 218, 235, 240 
moral values 9, 10, 14, 28, 31, 40, 
73-75,81,84,105, 109,113, 
116, 126, 131-134, 169, 177, 
187, 193, 201,205,216, 229 
biblical 205 
public 177 
Moses, Charles 229 
multiculturalism 14 
Murray, William J. 201 
Myers, Chief Bill 162 
myth, 10 percent 38-40 ( See also: 
10 percent myth) 


Naked Public Square 182 
North American Man/Boy Love 
Association (NAMBLA) 227 , 

National Association for 

Research and Therapy of 
Homosexuality (NARTH) 

97, 139, 205, 225, 226 
National Academy of Sciences 60, 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Gay and Lesbian Task 
Force 120, 123, 140, 158, 167 
National Institute for Healthcare 
Research 157 
National Lesbian and Gay 

Journalism Association 42 
National Lesbian and Gay Task 
Force 81 

Nazi tactics 51, 70, 76, 86, 88, 
96-105, 130, 138, 140 
National Education Association 
(NEA) 6, 7, 131, 132, 136, 
144, 174, 180, 225, 236 
Neeson, Liam 40 


Neuhaus, Richard John 182 
New Testament 35, 214 
New York Times 41, 42 
Newdow, Michael 14 
News day 16, 17 

Newsom, Mayor Gavin 167, 168, 

Nicolosi, Joseph 97, 139, 225 
National Institute of Mental Health 
(NIMH) 22, 124, 157 
No Name-Calling Week 143 
North Valley Baptist Church 96 
Northwest Ordinance 187 


Oakland Christian Center 104 
Office of Special Counsel (White 
House) 120 

Okwedy, Kristopher 93 
Old Testament 35, 74, 214 
One Teenager in Ten 135 
Orwell, George 130 
Outfest 85, 86 
Ovadal, Ralph 87 
Overhauling of Straight America, 
The 27, 34, 47, 48, 149 
Ozzie and Harriet 43 


Paglia, Camille 226 
Paige, Hon. Rod 136 
pandemic 58, 123 
parental rights 75 
Parents and Friends of Lesbians 
and Gays 44 

Parents Rights Commission 145 
Passion of the Christ, The 215 
Patton, Mary Beth 232 
Pavone, Father Frank 176, 195 
People for the American Way 
(PAW) 202 
Pawlick, J. Edward 41 
Pawlick, Sally 41 


pedophilia 144, 145, 227 , 228, 229, 

Penn, William 79 
persecution 15, 16, 48, 70, 71, 80, 
85-93, 96-105, 133, 138, 139, 
perversion 227, 239 
Pestritto, Ronald J. 94 
Peterson, Richard 116, 117 
Phelps, Fred 222, 223 
Philadelphia Five 85, 86 
Pill, Erastes 34, 48-50, 149 (See 
also: Madsen, Hunter) 

Pillar, Richard 61 
Pink Angels 85 
pink proms 137 
Planned Parenthood, 37 
Pledge of Allegiance 14, 118, 188, 
203, 204 
Pol Pot 36 

political correctness 194 
Pollard, Eric 50 
polyamory 164, 166 
polygamy 228 

popular culture 3, 32, 40, 123 (See 
also: culture) 

pornography 37-39, 75, 84, 85, 

132, 135, 170, 181 
Potter, Kimberly 94 
Powell, Colin 28 
Power Community Church 97 
Price, Deb 125, 126 
Price, Frederick K. C. 208 
Princeton Theological Seminary 

procreation 155, 161, 172, 226 
Project 10 134 
promiscuity 63, 132, 169 
propaganda 24, 25, 44, 48-53, 58, 
69, 130-135, 145-148, 158, 
163, 225 


rainbow curriculum 148 


Rather, Dan 42 
Reagan, Gov. Ronald 211 
Reagan, President Ronald 126 
rebellion 18, 20, 36, 194 
reconciliation, denominational 

recruitment of children 43, 44, 
130, 138, 144-150, 158, 159, 
215,218, 224, 227-229 
redemption 52 
Reed, Ralph 71 
Reicken, Henry 23 
Reinhardt, Stephen 118 
Reisman, Judith 39, 40, 145 
relativism 31, 155, 179 
religious freedom 119, 132 
religious liberty 75, 92, 103, 105, 
117, 126, 133, 216 
renewal, Christian 209 
reparative therapy 97 
Repent America 85 
restoration 232, 233, 235, 236 
revival 72-73 
Richmond, David 206 
Riefenstahl, Leni 44, 138 
right to life 75 

righteousness, calling to 192-194 

God-given 190 
homosexual 16 

Religious Liberties Protection Act 
(RLPA) 126 

Robertson, Pat 75, 203, 210 
Robinson, Eugene V. 213 
Roe v. Wade 188 
Ronen, Carol 108 
Roper v. Simmons 181 
Roth, Joe 45 
Rueda, Enrique T. 225 


safe schools 143, 144, 147, 215 
Salvation Army, The 142 


same-sex marriage 1, 9 (See also: 
homosexual marriage) 
sanctity of life 75 
Sanger, Margaret 37 
Satan 217 

Satin over, Jeffrey 4, 97, 161 
Scalia, Justice Antonin 82-84 
Schlesinger, Arthur 8 
schools 2, 9, 21, 26, 39, 82, 125, 
129-134, 136, 141-144, 147, 
149, 150, 159, 162, 174, 187, 
211,215,236, 240 
Schumacher, Tom 46 
Schwarzenegger, Gov. Arnold 126, 

Sekulow, Jay Alan 106 
self-restraint 3, 28 
sensitivity training 114 
sexual identity 110, 139, 140, 156, 
158, 225,233 

sexual perversion 37-39, 227, 239 
sexual predators 227-229 
sexually transmitted diseases 5, 6, 
57, 62-65, 125 
Shaffer, David 148 
Shays, Rep. Chris 110 
Sheldon, Beverly 98, 99 
Sheldon, Louis R 198 
Sheldon, Stephen 96 
Shepard, Matthew 222 
Shine, Dan 134 

Signorile, Michelangelo 163, 164 
Smith, Bob 47 

Socarides, Charles 23, 24, 157, 158 
social conditioning 19 
Society for Human Resource 
Management 110, 113 
sodomy 1, 81, 118 
sodomy laws 25 
Somers, Georgi 156 
Sorokin, Pitrim 30 
Souter, Justice David 82 
Southern Baptist Convention 114 


Speilberg, Stephen 45 
spiritual awakening 74 
Stahl, Leslie 42 
Stalin, Josef 36 

biblical 13, 33, 70, 73, 75, 125, 
139, 140, 159, 169, 170, 185- 
187, 191,205 
ethical 28 

moral 105, 134, 228 
Staver, Matthew 165 
Stephanopoulos, George 42 
Stern, Howard 72 
Stills, Stephen 55 
Stone v. Graham 178 
Stonewall Riots 59 
storm troopers 97, 101 
Streisand, Barbra 44 
substance abuse 5, 50, 51, 67, 124, 
125, 234 

suicide 65, 66, 124, 137, 147 
Sullivan, Hon. Louis 148 
Sulzberger, Arthur (Pinch), Jr. 40, 

Supreme Court 9, 37, 41, 60, BO- 
SS, 177-181, 188, 190, 201, 
204, 229 

of British Columbia 15 
of California 167 
of Kansas 156 
of Massachusetts 81, 164 
Swift, Michael 2 


10 percent myth 38, 39, 40 ( See 
also : myth, 10 percent) 
television networks 44 
Ten Commandments 178, 184 
textbooks, pro-homosexual 149, 

Thomas, Justice Clarence 82 
thought police 94 
thought reform 24 
Throckmorton, Warren 231 


Thune, Senator John 203 
Tocqueville, Alexis de 200 
tolerance 2, 81, 115-119, 126, 128, 
158, 172 

Tolerance Pledge 43 
Tooley, Mark 110, 111 
Toynbee, Arnold 29 
traditional values 3, 32, 37, 199, 
Traditional Values Coalition 

(TVC) 9, 48, 60, 75, 86, 98, 
121, 137, 168, 170, 183, 189, 
193, 207,215-218, 230, 235 
Troupis, Chris 118 
Troy, Daniel 8 
Turner, Tina 55, 72 


U.S. Census Bureau 157 
Unwin, J. D. 29, 72, 238 
Uribe, Virginia 135, 136 



biblical 191 

Christian 178-181, 184, 185, 
191, 198,216, 240 
moral 182, 183, 190, 229 
traditional 141, 205, 212, 219 
values voters 8, 10, 74, 173, 174, 
186, 202,212 
Varela, Antonio 16 
Vidmar, Patricia 79 
vigilance 195 
Viguerie, Richard 202 


wall of separation 200 
warnings from history 28-30, 72, 
111, 139, 155, 158, 159, 170, 
219, 238 

Washington Blade 50, 171 
Washington, President George 14, 
74, 79, 126 


We Are Family Foundation 43 
Webster, Noah 201 
Westboro Baptist Church 222 
White House 120, 121, 178, 202, 

Whiteman, Scott 145 
Wilberforce, William 238 
Wilde, Oscar 172 
will of the people 84 
Williams, Stephen 79 
Williamson, Kevin 44 
Wilson, Carl 29, 30 
Wilson, Governor Pete 97 
Winfrey, Oprah 179 
Wolfson, Evan 172 
Wonderful World of Disney 45 
workplace 106 

discrimination 113, 126, 132 
religion-free 71, 72 
World Court 215 
WORLD magazine 112-116 
World War II 18, 36 86, 162 
worldview 130 


Zadan, Craig 44 
Zedong, Mao 36 
Zeiger, Hans 136